Category: peer review

For my third project my peer review partner was Brandon, we decided to use similar peer review guidelines to previous projects, mainly the peer review guidelines for project 2 since both guidelines involved looking for a naysayer paragraph. My partner left comments that pointed me in the right direction, the content of my essay is sound but I need to integrate more of my source information. In practice the peer review guidelines worked well, which is to be expected as they were based off of the guidelines for previous projects which were really useful to me in the past. However if there was one are I wished we had touched on in the guidelines it would be simple sentence and grammar level issues since I often overlook them and a second set of eyes would have been helpful but not entirely necessary since it is just a rough draft that is bound to change.

I decided to make my project 3 in the interview podcast format. In this process I wrote a script outlining what me and the interviewer (my brother) would say. The script went through a few edits after reading it aloud and it turned out to be around 5 and a half minutes. I decided at the last week of the project to switch over to the podcast format because I find myself having more fun and being more engaged with the podcast than I do with the essay.

Overall I liked the new approach to peer and self revision we used in class. The highlighting method helped me realize what components I had and what components were missing or lacking. Additionally the peer comments I received helped me realize what I was doing well and what I needed to improve upon or make clearer to the reader. I hope that the comments I made are just as helpful to my peers as theirs were to me.