Peer Review of Technical Definition

Submit the draft of your Technical Definition to this discussion board before NOON on Saturday, April 3 Please submit it as a Microsoft Word .docx or PDF. For instructions on how to attach a file to a discussion board on Canvas, see this webpage:

Do not use Pages, as those without a MacBook would have trouble accessing your document. 

Step 2: 

After you submit your draft to this discussion board, you are going to give peer review feedback to at least 2 of your peers by 5pm on Sunday, April 4. Since the purpose of this discussion board is for everyone to receive feedback, please first respond to people on the discussion board who do not yet have peer feedback. Part of your peer review grade includes carefully selecting classmates with very little feedback, so that everyone gets feedback.

To respond to a peer, follow these steps:

  • Open your peer’s draft by clicking on the file they attached (or the link to their digital site).
  • Open a separate Word document and respond to the following 7 questions/prompts, typing your responses on the Word document that you created. Your responses should be detailed and in complete sentences. You should number your responses 1-7, but you do not need to include the questions/prompts in your response. Be sure to save your work as you go.
  • After you have finished responding to the 7 questions below, save your responses. Then click “reply” to your peer’s discussion board. Attach your peer review feedback as a Microsoft Word doc or docx file.

Questions for Peer Review

Please make your comments in-text, using the tools at the top of the screen, and provide at least one comment per question below. Note that some questions require you to make more than one comment. 

1. Look at the first sentence of the definition. Is it a one-sentence definition? Is it useful and helpful? Is there anything that could be improved about that sentence? Make at least one comment. 

2. Read over the document. Identify each definition strategy being used. For each one, comment on which strategy is being used (for example, negation, partition, analogy, etc.) and whether it is being used effectively. Was that strategy helpful? Was there anything confusing? Is there anything that could be better in that section of the document? 

3. Consider the organization of the technical definition. Is there anything you think should be moved sooner or later in the definition? Remember that especially helpful information should appear sooner rather than later. Did everything come in an order that made sense to you? Make at least one comment about organization. 

4. Consider the formatting of the definition. Do you think think it is formatted in a way that invites a non-technical, professional audience to read and helps them to understand? Does the document appear professional to you?  Make at least one comment. 

5. Consider the language of the definition. Was it all easy to understand and follow? Does the writer avoid technical jargon? Were there any sections that just made no sense to you? 

6. What were the strongest elements of the definition? 

7. Summarize the elements of this document that need the most revision. Reiterate suggestions for helping the student to improve that section. In other words, imagine that your classmate has limited time to revise and wants to know what they should do first–what do you suggest and why? 

Here’s how you’ll be graded: 

– Do you post a complete draft of your own paper and on time? (5 points)

– Do you leave helpful and thoughtful feedback for two peers? Do you answer all the relevant questions? Do you focus on giving suggestions that will help the reader to improve? (10 points)

– Did leave feedback for your peers by the commenting deadline, so that they could use that information to revise? (10 points)