• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


April 23

Page history last edited by Jared 9 years ago

1. EVALUATE...  

Section: 001

CRN: 25364

Days/Times: Tuesday/Thursday 9:35 - 11:00

Location: 335 State Hall

Instructor: Dr Jared Grogan


2. MEET...

3. REVISE... 


Peer Review Questions and Writing Prompts for Pairs or Groups...


As a group, read one Draft at a time, and respond to the following generative questions:


  1. In the first paragraph you read, do you see the author accurately identify and describe specific learning objectives and outcomes?   Does the author describe these in such a way that they show some clear understanding of why these learning objectives/outcomes matter to them as students and/or professionals?
  2. In the first or second paragraph, does the author single out the main ways (i.e. what projects, workshops, or lessons) they will use to discuss and assess their performance in:
    1. Writing and Designing
    2. Reading and Analyzing
    3.  Researching and Documenting
    4.  Using Technology and Media 
  3. Does the draft read more like (1) a 'narrative/story' of how the class went, or (2) an analysis of their work, or (3) an argument about they learned important concepts, skills or procedures?  A strong reflection might seem to do all three well.  Would you recommend:
      1. more descriptions/narratives about their work?
      2. more specific analysis of their writing process?
      3. more specific identification of course concepts and discussion of how these impacted their thinking and writing?
      4.  more persuasive argument about the improvements in their learning, thinking, or writing?
  4. The rubric asks for "a thorough and candid assessment" of individual performance.  We can gauge this with the following questions:
    1. Does the writer make strong evaluative statements?  Do these evaluative claims relate to the language in one or several learning outcomes? 
    2. Does the author give some proof or evidence in the form of examples?  Should there be more?  Is there enough analysis or "explanation" of this evidence?  Could it be more persuasive/convincing to you?
  5. The rubric asks for "a thorough and candid assessment" of collaborative performance.  We can co-author some of this by applying the following prompts:
    1. Can you as a group sum up the main benefits of collaboration in your team?  Do you think what you did well here can be replicated in future courses or workplace collaborations?  What strategies can you use again (if differently)? you be better prepared next time?  
    2. Can you as a group sum up the main challenges that you encountered?  Do you think these extrapolate/extend to other student or professional challenges with collaboration?  Will you be better prepared next time?  What will you do?  
  6. On the whole, does the author present a rich and convincing assessment of their own learning? What grade would you give this section based on the rubric below?




General Description






*The introduction provides a concise overview of the material covered in the performance review discussion.

*The introduction forecasts the main points of discussion in the body of the memo.

*The introduction forecasts the main conclusions or findings of the memo.



Performance Review


*The performance review offers a thorough and candid assessment of individual performance.

*The performance review offers a thorough and candid assessment of collaborative performance.

*The performance review relies on clear reference to course learning objectives.

*The performance review is supported with detailed reference to project work.





*The conclusion presents a convincing final argument for how well the writer performed individually and collaboratively this semester.

*The conclusion presents a persuasive set of lessons or findings that stem logically from the performance review offered in the memo.




*Is this document easy to read and attractive?  

*Do you follow the conventions of this genre, or, alternately, break the conventions in interesting and creative ways that indicate that you are familiar with those conventions?

*The performance review meets the 2-3 page length requirement.

*The performance review is presented in standard memo format.

*Document design makes effective use of headings, section breaks, etc to effectively organize the document.



Grammar & Style

*Is your document readable and sensible?

*Are words spelled correctly?

*Grammar and mechanics are perfect.

*Style is appropriate for a professional audience.













Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.