This learning outcome is focused on peer review and feedback. I will be using the feedback I gave Elijah in prompt two as an early effort example and the feedback I gave Sam as a subsequent example.
Feedback on Elijah:
Feedback on Sam:
Although some of my feedback on Elijah’s paper were comments on the document, it still wasn’t as detailed as my feedback on Sam’s paper. The transition from the early effort to the subsequent effort came with gaining experience on global and local revision in the time period in between both feedbacks. Throughout the semester, I definitely feel like I have gotten better at identifying the various elements of global and local revision. Both feedbacks had similar templates, but with different material. Both shared a thesis, but while Elijah’s template focused on whole paragraphs, Sam’s focused on the insides of individual body paragraphs. This doesn’t change the fact that global and local revisions should be present in both however. Global revisions with Elijah’s aren’t as specific. No sentences are pulled out from the original text and feedback shows what issues to fix, but not necessarily how to fix them. In Sam’s paper, the feedback gets more specific. The thesis is pulled from the original text to fix and suggestions on how to fix the issue is presented.
“While you did state that controversial monuments could pave the path for greater acceptance, I’d put your opinion in there.” and “One last thing I would add is a subordinate clause. I forgot the term for the one after, but basically you should add this. ‘Using, because, although etc., blank, then we must blank’. Something like that, a subordinate clause followed by an order.” are examples on how to fix the issue. Alternatives to the problem are presented and this isn’t present in Elijah’s feedback. As far as local revisions, all of the ones in Elijah’s are in the comments, and so are most of the ones in Sam’s. However, one local revision in Sam’s is found in the peer review section at the bottom.
“Fourth quote has three marks instead of two, but other than that your citations are great. Any grammar and spelling errors I find will be in the comments.” Citation feedback is present in both, but only in the comments section on Elijah’s whereas Sam has it on both comments and the peer review section. While the skill may not have improved by a lot, communicating the revisions certainly have. While it isn’t mentioned in these two feedback templates, I did keep the peer review glossary in the back of my head when giving feedback to these two papers. That sort of annotation style helps with keeping track of thoughts and reactions when giving feedback. Challenges weren’t ever really faced, just the process of getting better was the highlight.
