PEER REVIEW

PEER REVIEW

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression
2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement
3. Any other points and give feedback

? Show that the student has thoughtfully and carefully read and reviewed their partner’s draft paper
? Demonstrate in-depth familiarity with the paper guidelines and grading rubric
? Provide specific, constructive feedback that the reviewer’s partner can immediately act upon to improve his or her paper
? Be complete, addressing each of the 3 areas below in sufficient detail.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Provide a line-edit of the paper: Use the “track changes” and “comments” functions in Microsoft Word, paying attention to:
a. Correcting grammar and spelling
b. Highlighting awkward, unclear or incomplete sentences (you do not need to fix them, but you should explain how or why they are problematic)
c. Correcting or drawing attention to other basic writing mechanics. See the “writing mechanics” section of the grading rubric below for more guidance.
d. Are in-text citations placed appropriately? Comment if you think clarification on a source is needed or if a statement that is uncited requires citation (refer to the subsection of the grading rubric on sources, bibliography and citations)
2. Assess the paper’s content: At the end of the paper, provide written comments (in bullet points) that address each of the following areas. The feedback should be a minimum of ½ page single spaced, bullet pointed evaluation.
a. What are the paper’s main strengths (list 2-3)
b. Does the paper adequately address each content area, as described in the relevant section of the paper guidelines and grading rubric? (Pay special attention to the “in addition” guidelines at the bottom of each section of the grading rubric – does the paper achieve these?)
c. Where the paper does not “adequately address” a content area, provide specific, concrete suggestions on how the student can improve that section.
d. What is missing from or confusing about the paper? What areas can the student improve? Be specific on what is necessary to improve the paper.
e. Evaluate the paper’s sources and the bibliography. Is the student consulting the right kinds of sources?
3. Assign a score to the paper:
a. Give the paper a score for each section, as well as separate grades for writing mechanics and sources/bibliography. Scores should be based on the grading rubric. If less than a perfect score is assigned, the peer review must indicate how that particular section can be improved.
PEER REVIEW ASSIGNMENT

ASSIGNMENT GRADING: Your peer review will be evaluated and graded. This assignment is worth a total of 2.5% of your overall course grade. But beyond a grade, you should put effort into this assignment out of courtesy to your partner, who will likely spend serious time doing the same for you. A good peer review will:
? Show that the student has thoughtfully and carefully read and reviewed their partner’s draft paper
? Demonstrate in-depth familiarity with the paper guidelines and grading rubric
? Provide specific, constructive feedback that the reviewer’s partner can immediately act upon to improve his or her paper
? Be complete, addressing each of the 3 areas below in sufficient detail.

INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Provide a line-edit of the paper: Use the “track changes” and “comments” functions in Microsoft Word, paying attention to:
a. Correcting grammar and spelling
b. Highlighting awkward, unclear or incomplete sentences (you do not need to fix them, but you should explain how or why they are problematic)
c. Correcting or drawing attention to other basic writing mechanics. See the “writing mechanics” section of the grading rubric below for more guidance.
d. Are in-text citations placed appropriately? Comment if you think clarification on a source is needed or if a statement that is uncited requires citation (refer to the subsection of the grading rubric on sources, bibliography and citations)
2. Assess the paper’s content: At the end of the paper, provide written comments (in bullet points) that address each of the following areas. The feedback should be a minimum of ½ page single spaced, bullet pointed evaluation.
a. What are the paper’s main strengths (list 2-3)
b. Does the paper adequately address each content area, as described in the relevant section of the paper guidelines and grading rubric? (Pay special attention to the “in addition” guidelines at the bottom of each section of the grading rubric – does the paper achieve these?)
c. Where the paper does not “adequately address” a content area, provide specific, concrete suggestions on how the student can improve that section.
d. What is missing from or confusing about the paper? What areas can the student improve? Be specific on what is necessary to improve the paper.
e. Evaluate the paper’s sources and the bibliography. Is the student consulting the right kinds of sources?
3. Assign a score to the paper:
a. Give the paper a score for each section, as well as separate grades for writing mechanics and sources/bibliography. Scores should be based on the grading rubric. If less than a perfect score is assigned, the peer review must indicate how that particular section can be improved.