Peer Reviews Should Provide Feedback To A Peer On The Criter

Peer Reviews Should Provide Feedback To A Peer On The Criteria Expected

Peer reviews should provide feedback to a peer on the criteria expected in the paper. The Week 6 Feedback Form can be downloaded from the Appendices section of the course guide by clicking the link here. Follow these instructions: Choose a classmate's paper from the "Easy Drop off/Pick up Zone" discussion thread in the course shell. Obtain the Peer Review Feedback Form from the course shell. Comment on all criteria, noting strengths and/or areas for improvement on the feedback form. Provide completed Peer Review Feedback Form by posting it to the same "Easy Drop off/Pick up Zone" discussion thread AND submitting it to the Peer Review Assignment link above.

Paper For Above instruction

The process of peer review is a critical component of academic and professional development, serving not only as a means of providing constructive feedback but also as an opportunity for individuals to critically evaluate their own work through the eyes of others. In the context of this course assignment, peer review involves assessing a classmate’s paper based on specified criteria, offering balanced insights into its strengths and areas that require improvement, and submitting the completed feedback through designated channels.

Effective peer review begins with understanding the purpose of the feedback. It is not merely about pointing out errors or deficiencies but also about recognizing the strengths that contribute to the overall quality of the work. The feedback should be specific, objective, and balanced, highlighting what has been done well and providing actionable suggestions for improvement. This approach helps the recipient better understand the expectations, develop their skills, and produce higher-quality work in future assignments.

The assignment instructs students to select a peer’s paper from a designated discussion thread, the "Easy Drop off/Pick up Zone," which acts as a platform for submitting and reviewing peers’ work. After choosing a paper, students are to download and complete the Peer Review Feedback Form, which is available in the course guide’s Appendices. This form is designed to guide reviewers systematically through the evaluation process, ensuring that all criteria are covered comprehensively.

When providing feedback, it is essential to evaluate the paper against specific criteria that typically include organization, clarity, argument strength, evidence use, grammar, and adherence to assignment guidelines. For each criterion, reviewers should comment on both the strengths—for example, well-articulated arguments, logical flow, and clear language—and suggest improvements, such as better transitions, more supporting evidence, or correcting grammatical errors. Constructive criticism can be framed positively by offering suggestions rather than solely highlighting flaws.

Once the feedback form is complete, students are required to post it in the same discussion thread where the peer’s paper was uploaded to ensure transparency and facilitate peer-to-peer learning. Additionally, the form must be submitted through the designated Peer Review Assignment link, fulfilling the course requirement for formal documentation of the review process. This dual submission approach ensures that feedback is accessible to the original author and properly recorded for grading purposes.

Beyond fulfilling course requirements, engaging in peer review fosters critical thinking, enhances editing skills, and deepens comprehension of the assessment criteria. It encourages students to view work from multiple perspectives, which can lead to more nuanced understanding and improved writing skills. Moreover, providing thoughtful, constructive feedback can develop communication skills essential for professional environments where giving and receiving feedback is routine.

In conclusion, peer review is a vital academic exercise that promotes a collaborative learning environment. The process outlined—selecting a peer’s paper, completing the feedback form thoroughly, and submitting it correctly—ensures that the feedback is meaningful and contributes to the improvement of student work. This practice supports the overarching goals of the course by fostering critical analysis, encouraging adherence to criteria, and developing skills that are valuable beyond academic settings. Engaging diligently in peer review not only benefits the recipient but also enhances the reviewer’s evaluative skills and understanding of quality work.

References

• - Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
• - 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. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
• - Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712.
• - Lundstrom, K., & Baker, M. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s vocabulary. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.
• - Nicol, D., & Boyle, M. (2003). Peer assessment and higher education: A research agenda. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(4), 375-385.
• - Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning Together: Peer Tutoring in Higher Education. Routledge.
• - Race, P. (2007). The Lecturer's Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching. Routledge.
• - 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.
• - Carless, D. (2006). Learning-oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 57-66.