As of yet we have had two different peer review sessions, one for the opinion editorial and the other for this rhetoric analysis paper. Each was a little different. The first was a one on one system in which we had a partner to read our papers in class and give us feedback. The second was a group project in which people had time to look at it before and then come to class with ideas to help the person out. For me I thought that the second method worked out better.
The main reason was that as a homework assignment people were forced to read the papers before the class. This allow for deeper involvement in the paper, better feedback, and a chance to test your paper on a real audience. I felt better feedback from more people than just from the one person who read it in class with me.
There is also the fact that this couldn’t have helped in all situations as I’m some didn’t look at the paper with enough detail to really make a difference. The thought though is what counts and someone who actually read the paper before can make a much bigger difference in these papers.
I totally agree with you here. I have been looking at everyone else's post on the peer reviews, and the second method is WINNING!
ReplyDeletehaha it is always the thought that matters... haha. But I would agree with the homework, I feel people were more focused on doing a good job to make sure they help you out.
ReplyDelete