During Peer Review, I took a lot of the helpful advice I was given. Some comments I found to be the most helpful were ones regarding my intro and thesis. I kind of figured out the right place to put my thesis, and was able to clean up my introduction to make it a little more descriptive. When it came to giving my peers helpful comments, I tried to focus on bigger points opposed to spelling and grammar issues. I found that some of my peers used a lot of run-on sentences and I was able to help them separate those sentences. I also reminded peers in their essays that they need 4 quotes; 2 from their own work and 2 from the essay. I think this somewhat helped some people be steered more towards the right direction in their paper. Something that came up in our discussion was to make sure to stay on topic. For example, Henry had a lot of off topic ideas that made sense, but they weren’t necessarily supporting his thesis. We sort of guided him in a way and helped him find some passages that would help him have the right sources, opposed to overusing outside information. When I look over my own peer Review comments, I think I could have strengthened my introduction and thesis. I also needed to finish up my conclusion and wrap it all up. This kind of made me wish I had done these things before so I could have focused on smaller issues. This type of peer review differs greatly from high school. For one, in high school we would usually just do two people and peer review them on the spot. Peer review back then I feel like we all focused on smaller issues to fix like spelling or format. Now in college I believe it feels more professional to have the papers reviewed before class, and discussion in a group. It’s helpful to have more than just one opinion that focuses on the bigger main ideas of your essay.
There were a few things in my essay that my peer reviewers agreed needed some work. I found that they all suggested that I introduce soylent a little bit better than I did. There were also a few comments about adding in-text citations that I found really helpful because I might have forgotten to add them. A lot of the comments that I offered were about MLA format. I really wanted to make sure that everybody had everything they needed to get the point for MLA format. I feel like it is hard to put everything that I wanted to say into a comment, so I used the comments as a starting point for my discussions. For example, in one essay, I left a comment about a sentence that did not flow very well. Then when we talked in person, I was able to explain my thinking and give a few suggestions about how to edit the sentence. Another comment I left was talking about a sentence being repetitive, and during the discussion, I was able to help change the sentence a little bit to make it sound smoother. I wish that we talked a little bit more about Barclay’s formula when peer reviewing. This peer review is very different that what I did in high school. We really did not do a lot of peer reviewing in school. My teachers would not give us much time to work together in class to peer review, so we never really found the time to do it. I like this a lot better. I find it really nice that we were able to look over each other’s essays before class so we would be able to actually discuss everything during class. I think this is a really helpful way to review an essay.
The best global comments from my peers were from Lindsey and Samir. Lindsey suggested that I include my topic sentences from my body paragraphs into my introduction, as well as giving more context about Soylent and Widdicombe’s article. She also suggested that I combine some choppy sentences. Samir commented on my thoughts not flowing seamlessly from one to the other. He also wanted me to try to get the reader to think about what having a favorite meal really means, what their own relationship with food is, and describing in as much detail as possible why Soylent isn’t anybody’s favorite food. The reason why I found these the best is that they made me feel like Lindsey and Samir put thought into what could make my essay the best it could be.
I think the best global comments I offered my peers were: to make sure each paragraph relates back to Soylent for Samir; to provide a case for her thesis with strong evidence, and write more about the downsides and the times she sided with Soylent for Lily; and to compare and/or contrast what Lizzie Widdicombe says in her article to what her own claims are, using quotes from her favorite meal essay for support for Lindsey. I think these were the best because they seemed to be the most crucial in making each essay compelling.
What I remembered during my discussion was my peer review partners pointing out specific places where my flow seemed choppy. I also remember pointing out places in my peers’ papers where some words could be removed or replaced with more suitable words, such as in “this product might undoubtedly assist populations” from Lindsey’s paper.
I am happy with how our peer review went and thought that we talked about everything sufficiently enough, therefore I don’t wish anything else was brought up during our discussion.
I think this peer review was not only better for me in terms of getting better advice, but I felt like I offered my peers constructive criticism that they will be able to use to improve their grades. In high school, peer review only happened in class, and only surface level flaws were examined. This time, my peers looked at my paper on a much deeper level.
The best comment that I received during my peer review session was from Justyn. Justyn was very difficult during his peer review but I appreciate it because it really challenged me to raise the bar on my paper. He pointed out how I already assumed the readers knew about certain points I was making, and not giving evidence from the article to show what I was talking about. A specific example of this was when I was describing Soylent’s taste but not giving any examples from the article to back up my claim. On the other end of the spectrum when peer editing Justyn paper I pointed out that he needed to get more evidence from huis favorite meal essay, and the “The End of Food”, reading to help compliment his paper. I felt like Justyn did a great job and was really great with bringing the paper to life through his precise description, felt like I could visualize everything he was talking about. Another piece of advice I gave was to Emily to fix the flow of everything and make everything sound smoother. She had great detail and evidence, she just needed to put it all together. Peer reviewing in high school was immensely different. It was always recommended but you had to find someone to do it for you. I would always have my brother proof read my paper because he is a journalism major. He also knows me personally and my strengths and weaknesses, and what to look for. I liked how our peer review was multiple people and it was a great way to get multiple eyes on our paper. I hope these sessions continue in future sessions.
There were many comments posted on my paper regarding some grammar errors/suggestions. When writing papers it is always difficult for me to know whether or not my grammar is correct because I tend to think of it one way, and type it out another. Having comments on my paper suggesting a semicolon, or a comma here, or a period there really aided my process in going back to certain sentences and trying to fix them. Also, there were areas of my paper which were highlighted by my group where they thought a quote would best fit in my paragraph. I purposely left out the quotes I was going to use during peer review because I wanted to hear feedback just incase another quote fit better somewhere else in the paper. By having sections of my paper highlighted specifically to add a quote made it much easier, rather than attempting to throw in a quote wherever I feel it best fits. There was plenty of positive comments on my paper as well. Even though they were not constructive, or questioned anything in my paper, having someone say “this really works” , or “good hook to start the essay” gave me closure and confidence in what I was writing.
On one of the papers I peer reviewed I focused on making sure the person in my group was able to provide good sentence structure and variation. I found while reading their paper it was slightly bland, and each sentence was just a statement rather than a complex thought put into words. Another comment I gave was to incorporate a better, more enticing introduction to the paper. Having a solid, eye opening introduction allows the reader to really get involved and better understand what the author is attempting to state. Similar to my own paper I also gave positive comments as well. By providing my positive comments the people in my group understand there are things that need to be changed, and things that are fine just the way they are.
Debating/sharing ideas came up during our discussion. We initially had our discussion based on our comments, but as we continued to talk we began to take these comments and further build our discussion based off of them. For example, while reviewing my paper one of the comments suggest I incorporate a quote after a specific sentence. The discussion continued on to talk about which quote would best fit. We did a lot of building upon what had already been put on paper.
The only thing I could have asked for was more constructive feedback. My paper consisted of many positive comments complimenting my word choice, my descriptiveness etc. It is always nice to hear what works, but it is even better to hear what does not. I did have suggestions, and feedback, just a tiny bit more would have been better.
Overall, the difference between high school peer review and this peer review was very much different. In high school it was not taken as seriously, and everyone kind of just did it in order to get it over with. However, during our peer review it felt very real, and serious. It felt like everyone was trying to improve everyone else around them. The process was also very different. From my experience in high school it was “here is your essay, and this is when it’s due”. But now there was an entire process. Multiple drafts were written, and then we also had a small discussion and preparation for the peer review. Ultimately, the difference for me was the professionalism, and making real attempts at helping each other out.
7 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 8”
During Peer Review, I took a lot of the helpful advice I was given. Some comments I found to be the most helpful were ones regarding my intro and thesis. I kind of figured out the right place to put my thesis, and was able to clean up my introduction to make it a little more descriptive. When it came to giving my peers helpful comments, I tried to focus on bigger points opposed to spelling and grammar issues. I found that some of my peers used a lot of run-on sentences and I was able to help them separate those sentences. I also reminded peers in their essays that they need 4 quotes; 2 from their own work and 2 from the essay. I think this somewhat helped some people be steered more towards the right direction in their paper. Something that came up in our discussion was to make sure to stay on topic. For example, Henry had a lot of off topic ideas that made sense, but they weren’t necessarily supporting his thesis. We sort of guided him in a way and helped him find some passages that would help him have the right sources, opposed to overusing outside information. When I look over my own peer Review comments, I think I could have strengthened my introduction and thesis. I also needed to finish up my conclusion and wrap it all up. This kind of made me wish I had done these things before so I could have focused on smaller issues. This type of peer review differs greatly from high school. For one, in high school we would usually just do two people and peer review them on the spot. Peer review back then I feel like we all focused on smaller issues to fix like spelling or format. Now in college I believe it feels more professional to have the papers reviewed before class, and discussion in a group. It’s helpful to have more than just one opinion that focuses on the bigger main ideas of your essay.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11WYCdTm1Fn5a-1KLFwj28EpFWDQwV7OXsZaQbeKWbSk/edit
There were a few things in my essay that my peer reviewers agreed needed some work. I found that they all suggested that I introduce soylent a little bit better than I did. There were also a few comments about adding in-text citations that I found really helpful because I might have forgotten to add them. A lot of the comments that I offered were about MLA format. I really wanted to make sure that everybody had everything they needed to get the point for MLA format. I feel like it is hard to put everything that I wanted to say into a comment, so I used the comments as a starting point for my discussions. For example, in one essay, I left a comment about a sentence that did not flow very well. Then when we talked in person, I was able to explain my thinking and give a few suggestions about how to edit the sentence. Another comment I left was talking about a sentence being repetitive, and during the discussion, I was able to help change the sentence a little bit to make it sound smoother. I wish that we talked a little bit more about Barclay’s formula when peer reviewing. This peer review is very different that what I did in high school. We really did not do a lot of peer reviewing in school. My teachers would not give us much time to work together in class to peer review, so we never really found the time to do it. I like this a lot better. I find it really nice that we were able to look over each other’s essays before class so we would be able to actually discuss everything during class. I think this is a really helpful way to review an essay.
The best global comments from my peers were from Lindsey and Samir. Lindsey suggested that I include my topic sentences from my body paragraphs into my introduction, as well as giving more context about Soylent and Widdicombe’s article. She also suggested that I combine some choppy sentences. Samir commented on my thoughts not flowing seamlessly from one to the other. He also wanted me to try to get the reader to think about what having a favorite meal really means, what their own relationship with food is, and describing in as much detail as possible why Soylent isn’t anybody’s favorite food. The reason why I found these the best is that they made me feel like Lindsey and Samir put thought into what could make my essay the best it could be.
I think the best global comments I offered my peers were: to make sure each paragraph relates back to Soylent for Samir; to provide a case for her thesis with strong evidence, and write more about the downsides and the times she sided with Soylent for Lily; and to compare and/or contrast what Lizzie Widdicombe says in her article to what her own claims are, using quotes from her favorite meal essay for support for Lindsey. I think these were the best because they seemed to be the most crucial in making each essay compelling.
What I remembered during my discussion was my peer review partners pointing out specific places where my flow seemed choppy. I also remember pointing out places in my peers’ papers where some words could be removed or replaced with more suitable words, such as in “this product might undoubtedly assist populations” from Lindsey’s paper.
I am happy with how our peer review went and thought that we talked about everything sufficiently enough, therefore I don’t wish anything else was brought up during our discussion.
I think this peer review was not only better for me in terms of getting better advice, but I felt like I offered my peers constructive criticism that they will be able to use to improve their grades. In high school, peer review only happened in class, and only surface level flaws were examined. This time, my peers looked at my paper on a much deeper level.
https://jdinneen1.uneportfolio.org/journal-8/
The best comment that I received during my peer review session was from Justyn. Justyn was very difficult during his peer review but I appreciate it because it really challenged me to raise the bar on my paper. He pointed out how I already assumed the readers knew about certain points I was making, and not giving evidence from the article to show what I was talking about. A specific example of this was when I was describing Soylent’s taste but not giving any examples from the article to back up my claim. On the other end of the spectrum when peer editing Justyn paper I pointed out that he needed to get more evidence from huis favorite meal essay, and the “The End of Food”, reading to help compliment his paper. I felt like Justyn did a great job and was really great with bringing the paper to life through his precise description, felt like I could visualize everything he was talking about. Another piece of advice I gave was to Emily to fix the flow of everything and make everything sound smoother. She had great detail and evidence, she just needed to put it all together. Peer reviewing in high school was immensely different. It was always recommended but you had to find someone to do it for you. I would always have my brother proof read my paper because he is a journalism major. He also knows me personally and my strengths and weaknesses, and what to look for. I liked how our peer review was multiple people and it was a great way to get multiple eyes on our paper. I hope these sessions continue in future sessions.
There were many comments posted on my paper regarding some grammar errors/suggestions. When writing papers it is always difficult for me to know whether or not my grammar is correct because I tend to think of it one way, and type it out another. Having comments on my paper suggesting a semicolon, or a comma here, or a period there really aided my process in going back to certain sentences and trying to fix them. Also, there were areas of my paper which were highlighted by my group where they thought a quote would best fit in my paragraph. I purposely left out the quotes I was going to use during peer review because I wanted to hear feedback just incase another quote fit better somewhere else in the paper. By having sections of my paper highlighted specifically to add a quote made it much easier, rather than attempting to throw in a quote wherever I feel it best fits. There was plenty of positive comments on my paper as well. Even though they were not constructive, or questioned anything in my paper, having someone say “this really works” , or “good hook to start the essay” gave me closure and confidence in what I was writing.
On one of the papers I peer reviewed I focused on making sure the person in my group was able to provide good sentence structure and variation. I found while reading their paper it was slightly bland, and each sentence was just a statement rather than a complex thought put into words. Another comment I gave was to incorporate a better, more enticing introduction to the paper. Having a solid, eye opening introduction allows the reader to really get involved and better understand what the author is attempting to state. Similar to my own paper I also gave positive comments as well. By providing my positive comments the people in my group understand there are things that need to be changed, and things that are fine just the way they are.
Debating/sharing ideas came up during our discussion. We initially had our discussion based on our comments, but as we continued to talk we began to take these comments and further build our discussion based off of them. For example, while reviewing my paper one of the comments suggest I incorporate a quote after a specific sentence. The discussion continued on to talk about which quote would best fit. We did a lot of building upon what had already been put on paper.
The only thing I could have asked for was more constructive feedback. My paper consisted of many positive comments complimenting my word choice, my descriptiveness etc. It is always nice to hear what works, but it is even better to hear what does not. I did have suggestions, and feedback, just a tiny bit more would have been better.
Overall, the difference between high school peer review and this peer review was very much different. In high school it was not taken as seriously, and everyone kind of just did it in order to get it over with. However, during our peer review it felt very real, and serious. It felt like everyone was trying to improve everyone else around them. The process was also very different. From my experience in high school it was “here is your essay, and this is when it’s due”. But now there was an entire process. Multiple drafts were written, and then we also had a small discussion and preparation for the peer review. Ultimately, the difference for me was the professionalism, and making real attempts at helping each other out.