In earlier peer reviews I have done, I noticed that for the most part I tend to focus on what the author did well. The feedback I gave them wasn’t very constructive/I didn’t hint to where a specific idea or fact could be added to the paper I just agreed with what they were saying in parts of the paper I thought were good. For instance, in one of the earliest peer reviews I did in the beginning of the semester I wrote, “Evidence/Textual Engagement: I think you did a great job picking out this quote from the text and further explaining Delpit’s position on it.” Here I’m just acknowledging what the author did in his paper, I’m not really giving advice on how to improve it (as seen in a lot of my earlier peer review comments). In contrast to this, I looked at my most recent peer review work and noticed that I got a lot better at picking out specific pieces of the paper and giving advice on what to add or what to cut out to make their paper’s better. For example, ” Perspective/Idea: I think it could be beneficial to maybe also add Williams idea about ‘Identity Shifting’ in your paper as well. Especially because it can be seen in the Outsider Lit Nar. you provided below.” In this quote I pulled from a comment I made in one of my peers papers (same comment found in the PDF attached), I am suggesting he add more to his paper that could have potentially benefited his work. Although I did notice I didn’t completely step away from complementing my peers papers I was able to add more critiques in my later peer review work. However, I do still need work on being more of a critic to help my peers see other pathways for their papers instead of just one.
IDEAS – Older peer reviews: “Claim/Idea: I think you did a wonderful job at further explaining Delpit’s text against Gee’s in these paragraphs.”
Latest peer review: ” I think the quotes you pulled from both Wiliams and Alexanders text are great and really help in supporting your overall theme in this paper.”
- Still (sort of) the same feedback between these two quotes.
EVIDENCE – Older peer reviews: “I think you did a good job at connecting Jordan’s ideas to Delpits/Gee’s.”
Latest peer review: ” Evidence: The example of Natalie is great for your paper because it shows an outsider who found joy in reading through connecting to characters in books to her own life/ how she saw hope in doing that and grew from it. Commented [5]: This example also fits nicely into one of the aspects seen in your claim; how one who views themselves as an outsider an rise above through the help of literacy.”
