Peer Review:

Respond to the following peer review questions on a wiki page that you provide to your colleagues.

 

1) Does the Cover Page have the four key components?  YES/NO

 

 

2) Is the Table of Contents well formatted and structured with descriptive subsections?  YES/NO  

• Would you value more or less sub-sections?  Do you think this would be more persuasive or usable to their readers?

 

 

3) Is there an Executive Summary that meets the five criteria listed behind the link?  YES/NO

 

 

4) Critique the Introduction:

 

Start with these two questions: 

 

1. Does the introduction persuade the reader that a problem exists?

The introduction needs to make more of an argument. 

    2.Does it convince the reader that action must be taken to resolve it (likely by stressing the negative consequences or "opportunity costs" of taking no action)?

No, it explains to the reader that there is action to be taken but no reasoning or explanation.

 

 

Now Use Anderson's Checklist (558).  

• Note: Consider Anderson's 'background' stipulation as something that can be addressed in the authors' background section if there is one.

           

• Identifies the action or alternatives you investigated-No
• Tells (or reminds) your readers why you conducted this study- Do not make any direct relation to the study. Mention more about how adoption would benefit the university and why it is necessary.
• Persuades readers that the study is important to them-Stating why it is important but could be more persuasive.
• States briefly your main conclusions and recommendations, if the readers would welcome or expect them at the beginning of the report-No conclusion or recommendations stated
• Provides background information the readers will need or want-Included background information in introduction. Not all needed, too much history
• Forecasts the rest of your report, if this would help your readers-No mention of argument or foreshadowing in report

 

Anderson, Paul V. (2013-03-19). Technical Communication (Page 558). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition. 

 

 

Before moving on, go beyond simply "checking each box".  Provide written comments on:

 

1. which two elements from the checklist are executed very well, and why?

There is no background section and it is incorporated into the introduction. 

1. which two criteria from the checklist deserve the most attention in a revision, and how?

 

 

5) Test the Overview of Alternatives:

 

• After reading this section, do you have  a solid understanding of the alternatives? Need to make alternative more clear. We had a difficult time finding and deciding what sections were alternatives. Also, your alternatives, rather than being an overview, provide information (citing research) that should be including in your evaluations.

 

• Does each alternative foster this understanding with a short explanation?   If so, do you think their key readers will want any more description? Yes, an explanation of each alternative is stated.

 

• Does each alternative  seem to be presented as potentially valuable solutions to a problem, or are some biased?  In other words do some seem like 'weak options' or to be judged pre-maturely?  Yes, all alternatives seem valuable but some are mentioned in the evaluation that are not mentioned in the alternatives section.

 

• If there is a a need to explain alternatives in detail, do the authors cite several secondary sources to help describe the more technical facets involved in the alternatives? If so, were they helpful?  If not, what might they cite and why?  Sources are not cited. We believe that the information provided should be mentioned in the evaluation rather than overview.

 

6) Compare your Methods: 

• Use Anderson's checklist.  
• Tells the things your readers want to know about the way you obtained the facts and ideas presented in the report

Yes, it explains how they obtained the facts that they will use to further back up their argument. A suggestion we have is to create an appendix that shows the survey and the interview so readers can gauge thoughts based on what they asked. 

• Persuades the readers that this method would produce reliable results

They mention that results are reliable based on the interviews and surveys. This information allows us to believe that their feasibility is backed up. 

• Follow this up with any relevant commentary.

 

• Add several sentences 'sharing notes' by comparing any differences in the way your presented your methods. 

 

 

7) Analyze Results: 

• Looking only at the headings, do they seem do describe all the research that would be required to make an effective evaluation of the alternatives/solutions?  In other words are they descriptive/usable enough?  Do the heading seem to be comprehensive enough or offer enough categories for results so that they can make a wise evaluation?

They mention things that are supported by their research. Headings do not correlate to each other. Wording comes off kind of biased. Are descriptive and makes sense in the context of the project.

 

• Looking at each of the results sections one at at time... does each seem to be generating enough research?  Apply a sort of arbitrary standard here, looking for 'multiple' (2-3) sources per results section, but also comment generally on whether or not they seem to be providing enough proof to be thorough, or whether they need more. 

Each of the sections mentions how their research ties into the results and do state results, but do not provide any raw data such as data, graphics, and pictures. 

 

 

Looking each section one at a time, do a brief CRAAP assessment of the information provided:

 

Currency: does the information seem timely or current?  If appropriate, is there any mention of when the information was published or posted?  Should there be? Might the information need to be revised or updated?  

Relevance: does the information relate clearly to the goals of the report, or answer a specific research question?  If appropriate, is it being presented to the intended audience directly?  Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs?)

Authority: does the source come from credible source or credentials or organizational affiliations? Can you tell?

Accuracy:  does the data or argument seem reliable or correct?   Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?

Purpose: do the authors seem to have a clear purpose or reason for providing this information or data?  Do they make their intentions or purpose clear with the headings of with the text or with a figure/graphic/visual? Could this information also be used elsewhere in the report?

 

For all alternatives:

Currency - Information is current.

Relevance - Information is relevant.

Authority - Need to cite sources.

Accuracy - Somewhat biased when it comes to the off campus solution. Data will be reliable when cited.

Purpose - Purpose is stated but there is no support.

 

8) Judge and Counter-Argue Evaluations:

 

Judge their Judgements:  

1. Do they evaluate the alternatives well in terms of the criteria?

Need to make criteria more clear to be able to make this statement. 

1. Are they making clear evaluative statements?

I believe that the research is tied in and the statements are clear to us on the statement that is trying to be portrayed. 

1. Do they present facts and evidence to support evaluative statements?

In the alternative section, the cost sections need to be migrated. Also, site where all the numbers and information come from. Look at dell information agreements. The school is affiliated with dell. 

 

 

Counter-Argue:

1. Can you think of any reasonable objections to their evaluations? 
2. Are there any statements/judgements that seem weak, or unfounded? Evaluations would be solid if citations were made and some of the information mentioned in the overview of alternatives was mentioned in this section.

 

9) Conclusion:

 

Does this section briefly restate the main results of the research? No conclusion present

Does this offer a smart discussion of the best possible solutions, or courses of action (including the ways they can come together, or the ways to combine them over time)?   

 

Also, no recommendation section present.