Link For How To Do Peer Review

Link For How To Do Peer Review Httpsyoutubewkgpvezgpx8peer Revie

Link for how to do peer review: Read your classmate's work, mark appropriate edits using the editing tools, and provide at least two short inline comments per page to demonstrate engagement. Write a comprehensive sidebar comment discussing three strengths of the draft with suggestions for building on them, and three areas needing improvement with specific advice. Select a main point in your peer's essay and argue against it by presenting an opposing viewpoint. Evaluate whether the draft addresses the prompt, has a clear thesis, effective topic sentences, smooth transitions, sufficient evidence, and appropriate quotations. Focus on providing constructive feedback on the content and structure, not grammar and punctuation, as these are considered part of the rough draft process.

Paper For Above instruction

Peer review is an integral component of the writing process that promotes critical thinking, improves writing skills, and fosters a collaborative learning environment. Engaging thoughtfully with peer drafts allows writers to receive constructive feedback and refine their arguments and presentation. The process emphasizes substantive aspects such as thesis clarity, evidence strength, organization, and argument coherence, rather than focus on grammatical accuracy at the initial stages.

Effective peer review begins with active engagement with the draft. Reading attentively and marking appropriate edits using online editing tools demonstrates an understanding of the text and highlights areas needing attention. Providing inline comments on at least two places per page allows the reviewer to pinpoint specific issues or strengths, helping the writer understand precisely what aspects require revision. These comments should be concise yet meaningful, addressing issues such as clarity, evidence, or organization.

Beyond inline comments, a comprehensive sidebar comment is essential. This reflection should identify three strengths within the draft, such as a compelling thesis, effective use of evidence, or strong organization. Offering constructive suggestions on how to further develop these strengths encourages positive reinforcement and guides the writer toward improvement. Conversely, pointing out three areas that need development—such as weak topic sentences, unclear transitions, or insufficient evidence—provides targeted guidance for revision.

In addition, selecting a central claim or main point from the essay and arguing against it by presenting an opposing viewpoint enhances critical engagement. This exercise aids the writer in considering different perspectives and strengthens their argumentative skills. When evaluating a draft, reviewers should consider whether the essay directly addresses the prompt and whether the thesis statement is clear and focused.

Further, the review should assess the body paragraph structure: Are topic sentences clear and supportive of the main thesis? Do transitions between paragraphs facilitate a logical flow? Is there enough evidence, including quotes and examples, to substantiate claims? Would alternative quotations or additional evidence improve the argument? These questions help ensure that the essay maintains coherence and persuasiveness throughout.

It is important to note that peer review at this stage is primarily focused on big-picture content and structural issues, not grammar or punctuation. The goal is to help the writer strengthen their ideas, organization, and overall effectiveness before polishing language and syntax in subsequent drafts. Maintaining a kind and respectful tone fosters a positive review environment that encourages growth and learning.

References

• Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded peer feedback and assessing peer feedback: I. theoretical foundations and methodological issues. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 279-298.
• Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
• Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
• Race, P. (2007). The lecturer’s toolkit: A resource for developing effective teaching and learning. Routledge.
• Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical ideas for higher education. Routledge.
• Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback：the learning element of formative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 39-52.
• Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2001). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 53-67.
• Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing assessment for peer learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(3), 372-383.