I have always held a deep admiration for my High School English teacher who has always been very articulate and proficient in writing. Even today, she writes for a local publication, and I find joy in reading her articles. She was an exceptional teacher and even though I was lucky enough to be in her class, I never felt I had the potential to write a publication. I have never been good at writing, in fact, I struggled in her class. The following year I was told I should take the regular English course instead of the Honors course. I felt defeated; from that point, I was immediately convinced I was a terrible writer. In a previous post, Just Keep Swimming: Learning is Forever!, I shared how writing made me anxious. Completing these ADL courses has thrust me out of my comfort zone and put me in a very vulnerable position that I am still uncomfortable with. But, completing these courses has pushed me as a learner and has fostered a growth mindset in myself!
In contrast to my high school English class, I have had the opportunity to collaborate with a supportive group of peers who have encouraged and provided feedback on my writing journey to produce a publication. Is it perfect? No. But am I proud of it? Yes!
Our collaborative group opted for an efficient approach by conducting our peer review process through a shared Word document. Each member of the group has their own document, where we as peers score their publication and offer constructive feedback and insightful feedforward suggestions. We were also able to comment on our peer’s rough draft document. This method allowed us to critique each other's work, highlighting areas of strength and areas that may benefit from further improvement. Through the ability to directly highlight and comment on our peers' rough drafts, we engaged in an exchange of ideas and improvements to enhance the quality of our publication.
Our rubric consisted of the following areas:
Content
Organization and Structure
Writing Style and Clarity
Evidence and Support
Critical Thinking and Reflection
Conclusion and Implications
After being scored individually by each of my peers, my average peer review score was 47.96 out of 50 points.
Through this process, feedback and feedforward played a crucial role in the continuous process of improving my publication. Feedback offered valuable insights into what aspects of my publication worked well and what areas required improvements. It provided me with a comprehensive understanding of how our work is perceived by others, allowing me to refine my content and structure accordingly.
Whereas feedforward goes beyond identifying current issues. It offers proactive suggestions for improvement. Feedforward has helped me as an author anticipate potential challenges and explore alternative approaches. By incorporating feedforward into the revision process, I was able to strengthen my publication to relate more with my audience.
In this peer review process, feedback and feedforward have created a collaborative environment for me to continue to grow. It has fostered a culture of constructive evaluation, encouraging me to evaluate my work and embrace opportunities for improvement. Ultimately, by receiving feedback and feedforward, I as an author can enhance the quality of my publication, ensuring that it meets the expectations of the readers.
Peer Scores:
Ashley - 46
Amanda - 48
Hillary - 48
Katie - 48
Mikeela - 49.8
Comentarios