#10

We performed peer review a little different way. We first met in a small group and discuss our ideas. I felt it was very helpful to understand other’s thoughts and ideas on the same topic we wrote about. It was nice opportunity to explore the main idea in-depth. Even it made me to think that I hadn’t realized meaning when I read and understand the main idea. I think the small group discussion was helpful. However, read out loud our essay is not very effective. As peers were reading their essay, I couldn’t concentrate to follow the essay compare to just reading them.  

If the writer’s thesis statement and organization are not clear, I would not understand well as a second language speaker. Therefore, whenever I understand and identify the essay’s thesis statement and organization such as summarize part, analysis part, and personal response part easily, the essay has clearly states thesis and organized effectively. The weakness is I cannot analyze the essay deeply. Frankly speaking, while I did peer reviewing I felt everybody is write well than mine and good writers. So I tended to give them a positive feedback.

Also, we are peer reviewing with first draft which is not a perfect and unfinished work. I found out that reviewers put comments on incomplete work is not very helpful. It helps in some way such as grammar errors but we are peer reviewing as not an expert reader, thus, people tend to put positive comment just like me. Because peers put comments on technical grammar errors other than entire organization or contextual effectiveness, the peer’s comment less helpful in revision step. I think we had enough time of peer review time in class. In addition, the ideal peer reviewing process for me is discussing in a large group rather than read out loud to peers.