Peer Critique Sheet For Research Paper

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 grid

A 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 form

A 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.

INSTRUCTIONS
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.

ORGANIZATION (10%)
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.

CITATIONS (20%)
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?

CONTENT (50%)
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.



Reference

University of Hawaii at Manoa's Writing Program Peer Review Groups and Criteria Grids.



  • Role Playing
  • Service Learning
  • Socratic Questioning
  • Spreadsheets Across the Curriculum
  • Studio Teaching in the Geosciences
  • Teaching Urban Students
  • Teaching with Data
  • Teaching with GIS
  • Teaching with Google Earth
  • Teaching with Visualizations
  • Undergraduate Research
  • Using an Earth System Approach
  • **download Sample Peer Review here (.doc file)**

      COURSE PREFIX & NUMBER: Title of Assignment
    Peer Read Around

    To the Author: Please assist your readers in giving you the kind of feedback you need at this stage in your writing process. What, specifically, do you want feedback on? Please write three questions below which you’d like your readers to answer after reading your initial draft.

    1.

    2.

    3.

     

    READER #1:

    Paper Requirements

    Does the paper meet requirements?
    ____Sources (List #)        ____Cited correctly       ____Pg. length (List #)

     

    Introduction

    Does the paper open smoothly (e.g. with a series of rhetorical questions, compelling short story, shocking statistic) and in a way that makes you want to read more? If yes, what do you find especially effective? If not, suggest a way this author could start the paper.

     

    What is the thesis of the paper? Do you find this claim to be clear? Interesting? Innovative? What do you especially find compelling about the thesis? What needs work?

     

    Does the introduction preview the main points of the paper? (YES      NO)

     

    Body

    Is the paper well organized? Can you follow it easily? Does the organization make sense in light of the overall argument and preview stated in the introduction? What changes would you suggest?

     

    Is the argument situated/analyzed within socioeconomic, political, cultural and historical contexts? What do you need to know more about in order to appreciate the paper’s thesis?

     

    Are sources appropriately integrated and cited?

     

    Suggest at least two specific ways this person could improve the paper.

     

    In the space below, please respond to the author’s questions 1, 2, & 3 listed above.

    NOTE: If you want more than one peer reader, simply copy and paste these questions again.

    Comments

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *