a. This text surprised me in its emphasis on the importance of praise as well as criticism. Most peer reviewers' main problem is their lack of criticism on their peers' papers, causing me to assume that this text would emphasize criticism over praise. Contrary to my assumption, however, Richard Straub highlights how encouragement through adequate praise is vital in the reviewing process, as long as its met with equal amounts of appropriate criticism. This approach surprised me but also seems incredibly logical to me, and I will surely keep it in consideration next time I peer review.
b. The strategies mentioned in this text can definitely help in peer review. One that is especially helpful is the explanation of what to address in your comments. This is because it explains what you as the reviewer should look for and address, depending on where the writer is in the writing process. Another strategy that stuck out to me was when Straub explained how a reviewer should sound. I don't entirely agree with this suggestion because the reviewer, I believe, should be able to choose how they want to sound for the sake of the writer; I feel this suggestion places too much restriction on the reviewer.
c. I have done peer review in the past and it has proven to be immensely helpful because it grants the opportunity to hear suggestions from fellow students. These suggestions are more personal when they come from friends or peers than from teachers or critics, causing them to have a greater effect on the writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment