View PDF Version
Author of the draft _________________________ Reader _________________________
Author: write here what you would most like the reader to think about as he or she reads your draft:
Reader: respond honestly and tactfully to the following questions. What comments do you have that will help the writer compose a better next draft? Read through the draft once and answer below.
What do you like most about the draft? What has the writer done well?
Underline on the paper what you think the thesis is. Is it clear from the thesis what the author intends to argue? Is the thesis too simple or too complex? Suggestions:
What is the best or most interesting point the author has made? Why? Suggestions:
What is the weakest or least successful point? Why? Suggestions:
Does each paragraph have a clear focus? Does the initial sentences launch each paragraph in some way? Is there sufficient analysis and evidence in each paragraph? Mark on the paper suggestions for paragraph revision.
Does the writer use sufficient evidence for all claims? Does the writer show the relationship between the evidence and the argument? Suggestions:
How well has the author responded to the assignment? Suggestions:
What do you think are the most important concerns that the writer needs to address?
What other suggestions do you have for revision? Be sure to address the author's concern(s) noted at the top of this form.
Mark on the paper any obvious errors you see in the draft: diction, punctuation,
Sample Forms - Peer Review
Students utilizing well-developed feedback forms for peer review can in effect give students a deeper understanding of how their writing affects different readers, reinforce familiarity with revising strategies, and assist students in developing a familiarity with scientific writing expectations.
Several formats exist for peer-review feedback forms. Two common styles of feedback forms include criteria grids and open-ended forms. Both forms are presented in general terms below. You can also see examples of open-ended forms for a science research paper, a science lab report, a science article, and a problem-solving exercise.
Criteria gridA criteria grid is useful to assist students in recognizing and constructing assertion-plus-evidence arguments. Fuller responses may be obtained by leaving more space in the "Reader's Comments" column and soliciting specifics from the reviewers. The grid can be available online through a website or set up in MS Word or Excel as a table.
Examples of criteria grids can be found at the University of Hawaii at Manoa's Writing Center peer-review page.
Open-ended formA list of open-ended questions can encourage students to provide more detailed feedback. Inform the students that the amount of space you leave for a response reflects the amount of information you are expecting.
Author __________ Reviewer __________
The goals of peer review are 1) to help improve your classmate's paper by pointing out strengths and weaknesses that may not be apparent to the author, and 2) to help improve editing skills.
Read the paper(s) assigned to you twice, once to get an overview of the paper, and a second time to provide constructive criticism for the author to use when revising his/her paper. Answer the questions below.
1) Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Literature Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
2) Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
3) Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
4) Did the writer cite sources adequately and appropriately? Note any incorrect formatting.
5) Were all the citations in the text listed in the Literature Cited section? Note any discrepancies.
GRAMMAR AND STYLE (20%)
6) Were there any grammatical or spelling problems?
7) Was the writer's writing style clear? Were the paragraphs and sentences cohesive?
8) Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? Explain.
9) Did the writer comprehensively cover appropriate materials available from the standard sources? If no, what's missing?
10) Did the writer make some contribution of thought to the paper, or merely summarize data or publications? Explain.