Grand Canyon MKT245 week 5 Marketing Analysis Research Report: Peer Review Latest 2015 October

What is
Peer Review?

Peer review is the process of allowing another
person to read your piece of writing in order to offer suggestions and
feedback. This can happen at any stage of the writing process, but can be especially
helpful during the revision stage. The peer reviewer often has a clear focus
while they read, such as a rubric or a checklist, so that their feedback about
strengths and weaknesses are specific.

Why use
Peer Review?

The greatest advantage for using peer review is
the reciprocal benefit to both the reader and the writer. Obviously, having
someone else review your material or focus on specific aspects of your writing
will result in feedback that can help you improve your paper. Additionally, the
reviewer benefits in two particular ways: First, the peer reviewer is able to
see alternative ways of presenting the same material and learn new writing
techniques, especially if the reviewer and writer are students submitting
assignments for the same course. Second, the act of constructively reviewing
another’s piece of writing–with the intention of providing specific feedback–allows
the reviewer to see their own writing in a new and critical way. Both of these
advantages for the reviewer can help improve their own writing development.

Responsibilities
of the Writer

As a writer, you should view this feedback as an
opportunity to get constructive feedback from someone else. However, ultimately
it is your piece of writing, so you must decide whether or not to make the
changes suggested by the reviewer. Above all, you should be positive and open
to accept the critical feedback of others, since the purpose is to help you
improve your writing. Do not see the feedback as an attack on you but as an
opportunity for learning how to make your writing better.

Responsibilities
of the Reviewer

As a reviewer, it is important to remember that you
have been invited to help another person by giving feedback about their work.
Writers can feel vulnerable during this process so be respectful and
professional, but honest, in your feedback. It’s a good rule of thumb to follow
these five rules when reviewing another person’s paper:

1.
Read the paper once without comments so that you get a
feel for the whole piece.

2.
Provide a focused summary of feedback that uses a
rubric or a checklist to support your narrative comments.

3.
Target big ideas or broad skills that will have a
significant impact across the entire piece. For example, recommending that they
reorganize certain parts so that the flow of ideas are smoother and more coherent
is better than talking about the proper use of commas.

4.
Use constructive criticism with sensitivity to the
writer’s feelings by providing specific feedback about how to improve the piece,
such as, “I liked this part and was wondering more about the context. Can you
relate support of breast cancer awareness to the company’s mission or target
market? How does the cause (breast cancer awareness) fit in with the company
and what it is selling? How is this cause related to a social responsibility
issue?

5.
Be sure to identify what’s “good” in the paper as well
as by being positive about the things the writer is doing right. Reinforce
their efforts and those skills that make the piece effective. Think of the ”sandwich
approach,” i.e., start with mentioning something good about their writing,
discuss some areas for improvement, and then finish up with some suggestions
for solving the weaknesses.

Instructions
for the Writer

1)
Please fill out the “Writer’s Comments” section below.

2)
Attach a copy of your rough draft to the CLC forum
using the following naming convention: Lastname.Firstname_RoughDraft.

3)
Attach a copy of this document (with the writer’s comments
below), using the following naming convention: Lastname.Firstname_PeerReview.

4)
Submit both the rough draft and Peer Review Guidelines
document to the CLC forum by the end of Module 3.

5)
Important: Use the writer’s name, i.e. yourname when naming both files. Don’t
use the name of the peer reviewer.

Writer’s
Comments to the Peer Reviewer

What is my purpose and who is my audience for this
piece of writing?

What is the central theme or main point I want to
make as a result of this piece of writing?

In what specific areas would I like feedback about
my writing?

Instructions
for the Reviewer

Use the
following checklist to focus your comments. This checklist contains the
same criteria in the rubric that the instructor will use to grade the reports
(the rubric is located at the assignment drop box). Using this checklist provides
a set of criteria to guide your thinking, and will help you provide better
feedback that is tailored to the specific piece of writing. The checklist will
also help you avoid giving overly generic or unfocused suggestions.

Writer’s
Name:

Peer
Reviewer’s Name:

Checklist

Please fill out the “Reviewer’s Comments” section below beforereturning this word document along with the rough draft for
your peer. Then attach this document and the rough draft back to the CLC forum.

Reviewer’s
Comments

What is your general impression of the writer’s
effectiveness, given their purpose, the audience, and the central point they
wanted to make as explained above?

What did the writer do well in this piece of
writing?