JOURNAL #20: This is a journal AFTER peer review—a reflection on how your workshop went. Just copy and paste it on your Profile page (do this journal right after your workshop).
JOURNAL #20: This is a journal AFTER peer review—a reflection on how your workshop went. Just copy and paste it on your Profile page (do this journal right after your workshop).
14 thoughts on “JOURNAL #20: This is a journal AFTER peer review—a reflection on how your workshop went. Just copy and paste it on your Profile page (do this journal right after your workshop).”
Overall, I got a lot out of my peer review session. We went around and briefly discussed our papers, providing each other with important feedback for the revision process. A lot of the feedback I received was things that I agreed with, and things that my peers were saying were all things that I agreed with. Some of the feedback that I received was to break apart my paragraphs a little more, and address my subject by his last name. I also want to add more quotes from colleagues of my subject, as I don’t have many quotes from people besides Mourad.
Our peer review process had a minor hiccup right off the bat due to the fact that Brady had experienced technical difficulties beforehand that inhibited his ability to turn in the profile draft, so while he put it into the profile folder, me, Evan, and Grace reviewed each other’s journals. The journals themselves were very interesting, each of us offering valuable insight on the other’s writing. I appreciated the amount of time and effort each person put into their reflection and I got a lot of good feedback from everyone. The point was brought up that I do need to find some more quotes relating to Grace’s professor, Professor Mohan. I also have to delve deeper into Grace’s past, ask them more questions on their background and what got them into the lab. I also have to try and use Grace’s last name, Trost, rather than their first name when referring to them within the profile. I could perhaps focus more on Grace’s high school years, especially with regards to their time with taking college classes coupled with their existing high school ones. It’s an interesting facet of their background and could be the contributing factor around their acceptance into the shark lab in the first place. I should also focus on their interests back home, and what caused someone from the Midwest to come to the coast to study marine sciences. I should find something to use as an ending. Perhaps wrapping up the essay with their lab work and using it as motivation for first years rather than opening with it might be helpful.
Overall my peer review went well, I received great feedback on word economy and what can be added to make it a more effective profile. Other than that I received mostly good reviews which helped make my process easier because now I have less to worry about. I went in and made some of the necessary changes already. I believe that today’s time was used productively.
This peer review session was very helpful in my workshopping process. My peers explained to me that another perspective would really add to my piece, and that a strong title and reworked lede would introduce my subject much better. I’ll have to interview a student of Pam to get more student insight on her teaching and her knowledge, and I’ll be able to improve my piece a lot with that information. Some reconfiguring will better the flow of the piece in general and will make it more engaging and digestible to readers.
Our class workshop today was really helpful for me, and our group was engaged and willing to share some great ideas and constructive criticism. One big thing for me was how looking at my other group members’ profiles reminded me that I needed to add some things, such as a subhead, and for others, they remembered they needed a photo, etc. I have a solid list of items to work on for polishing up my profile, such as adding that subheadline, making sure I give enough context for what the research is, and adding the title of the book in the title or subheadline. I also had some helpful ideas on how to best end the piece, and I might try to find a better quote after adding in interview questions from Prof. McHugh I should be ready to be done.
I think it went really well. I got good feedback about paraphrasing and putting in important and powerful quotes over just a massive one. As well as finding my headline for my profile, instead of just “Profile”. This helps break down the massive paragraphs and helps me reformat my profile, making it have a sharper angle and edge to it.
As a whole, I got a lot of helpful feedback regarding my profile. We went around as a group and shared thoughts and feedback on each other’s profiles. Alot of the feedback was about how to add more character to the story opposed to making it seem like hard news which was really helpful because that was something that I was trying to figure out when I was writing it myself. I agreed with a lot of the feedback that my group had given me because it was things that I was trying to figure out when I was writing. Another thing that I was given for feedback was to get more of Will’s role as an RA and Presidential ambassador, which was something that I knew I needed and something that I planned on getting into. As a whole I think my paper is in a good spot for the rest of the work I have to do.
The workshop today was informative, it helped with the formatting of my profile from an outsider’s perspective. I was also reassured about my anecdotal lede, which I was previously a bit unsure about, though now understand that it works with this profile. I definitely have to add more to the quotes from other people and Brod himself, which I will have to review my recording from the interview for. I have all the information that I need, it just needs to be incorporated and then refined. I also was advised to allow the ending to conclude with the creative side of Brod’s writing, having him get the last word would also help with this. Overall, the feedback was useful and I look forward to finishing and rounding out this profile.
Journal #20: Reflection on the peer review session went on 4/16
My group Tony, Phoebe and Caitilin all had our profiles analyzed. We went one by one and shared our opinions and critiques of others’ profiles. First Tony went and the general consensus was that there were multiple small grammatical and spelling errors and that there could be other perspectives added like more quotes from different football players that have had positive experiences with Viall. Next Phoebe went and the critiques that I picked up on were there were some run-on sentences and the paragraphs were too long. We also suggested that Phoebe paraphrased some of the quotes that she included as well as some structure changes to increase the readability and the flow of the overall piece. The main critique that I got from my peers was to try to find ways to condense and to definitely add the quote about how Professor Faraday worked on boats for 4 years after her sea semester experience. The last person to get their profile analyzed was Caitlin for Caitlin the main comments were to add a tile and to be more specific about the who,what,when,where,why,how of the organizations that Morgan is involved in, What the organizations do, where they are based and what specifically is Morgan’s role in these organizations.
I think that our peer review session went really well and provided a lot of valuable insight. My group highlighted the sections of my profile that need more clarification and more context, and they also clearly answered all of my questions, and provided potential solutions. Because of their critiques, I’m also working on letting the quotes speak for themselves a bit more, and I’m also doing a little bit of reformatting in some sections. I am also still deciding on whether or not I will talk about LaBonte’s recent talk, as it’s been difficult to find an appropriate place for it while also staying in the word count. Overall, I found this session really helpful, and I also thought the group I worked with were really focused on making all of our pieces better, which was awesome.
Through our second round of peer edits this time in small groups there were definitely valuable topics discussed and important feedback shared. Where this was our second time peer editing our classmates’ papers I feel like we were more prepared and open to sharing honest feedback. In addition to this we had time to prepare our feedback to only share out in our small groups of 4 people. I found the smaller groups to be more beneficial compared to the whole class being included in the feedback process in the sense that it wasn’t as much critiquing but more so a discussion on suggestions and getting feedback from reading perspective on what to improve on moving forward. Comments and topics I found helpful this time around were being able to compare all of our writings and those in the group who had similar elements in our papers and being able to get specific feedback from them was helpful. To elaborate, my piece was missing a few components and supporting details that would come from a student interview being added in. Kristen, who was in my group, had also gone the route of getting supporting details from hosting student interviews so that advice from her was helpful.
Going into this peer review, I was nervous about the length of my article, my use of quotes, and the overall storytelling and character presentation aspect. Looking at the headline, I can add ‘a’ to the beginning, and for the subheadline, I can clarify, ‘what it’s like…’. I could change verbiage like ‘professing’ so it’s less awkward of a title. My group discussed taking a look at some of my paragraphs early on because they’re a bit wordy, so restructuring my words but keeping the same information will help. It was also suggested to add more quotes from Qunlain like her statement about the environment at UNE and the great faculty here. Hearing more quotes from my profile will help add perspective and explanation. Overall, I was relieved that my article wasn’t as rough as I perceived it to be.
Overall I think the peer review was very beneficial to me because I was able to get good ideas from the group I worked with. Going around the group talking about each other’s papers and giving each other feedback on how to make it better was very helpful from both an editorial standpoint and the person getting the feedback. The feedback I received was very helpful because it made me aware on how to reconnect my story back to what it started as. Some feedback I was given was to move up my background of my subject before I start going into using his last name and I was also given tips on my grammatical errors which was very helpful. Overall I did like being in the smaller group for peer review because it was more helpful being able to be in a smaller discussion and not a whole class but I did like the advice from the whole class for the first project.
The peer review that we did in the small groups in class was very beneficial for me because I feel like I learned a lot about what I needed to sort of add to the profile, and I also got a lot of tips on the formatting of my story that I wasn’t expecting, which I found to very helpful when it came to editing my story. I feel like the smaller condensed groups really let us cut to the heart of what everyone wanted to get to and ask good questions about where to take their stories or what maybe needed to change. I think this smaller group format really led to a productive and efficient conversation, that was really nice for everyone in the group.
14 thoughts on “JOURNAL #20: This is a journal AFTER peer review—a reflection on how your workshop went. Just copy and paste it on your Profile page (do this journal right after your workshop).”
Overall, I got a lot out of my peer review session. We went around and briefly discussed our papers, providing each other with important feedback for the revision process. A lot of the feedback I received was things that I agreed with, and things that my peers were saying were all things that I agreed with. Some of the feedback that I received was to break apart my paragraphs a little more, and address my subject by his last name. I also want to add more quotes from colleagues of my subject, as I don’t have many quotes from people besides Mourad.
Our peer review process had a minor hiccup right off the bat due to the fact that Brady had experienced technical difficulties beforehand that inhibited his ability to turn in the profile draft, so while he put it into the profile folder, me, Evan, and Grace reviewed each other’s journals. The journals themselves were very interesting, each of us offering valuable insight on the other’s writing. I appreciated the amount of time and effort each person put into their reflection and I got a lot of good feedback from everyone. The point was brought up that I do need to find some more quotes relating to Grace’s professor, Professor Mohan. I also have to delve deeper into Grace’s past, ask them more questions on their background and what got them into the lab. I also have to try and use Grace’s last name, Trost, rather than their first name when referring to them within the profile. I could perhaps focus more on Grace’s high school years, especially with regards to their time with taking college classes coupled with their existing high school ones. It’s an interesting facet of their background and could be the contributing factor around their acceptance into the shark lab in the first place. I should also focus on their interests back home, and what caused someone from the Midwest to come to the coast to study marine sciences. I should find something to use as an ending. Perhaps wrapping up the essay with their lab work and using it as motivation for first years rather than opening with it might be helpful.
Overall my peer review went well, I received great feedback on word economy and what can be added to make it a more effective profile. Other than that I received mostly good reviews which helped make my process easier because now I have less to worry about. I went in and made some of the necessary changes already. I believe that today’s time was used productively.
This peer review session was very helpful in my workshopping process. My peers explained to me that another perspective would really add to my piece, and that a strong title and reworked lede would introduce my subject much better. I’ll have to interview a student of Pam to get more student insight on her teaching and her knowledge, and I’ll be able to improve my piece a lot with that information. Some reconfiguring will better the flow of the piece in general and will make it more engaging and digestible to readers.
Our class workshop today was really helpful for me, and our group was engaged and willing to share some great ideas and constructive criticism. One big thing for me was how looking at my other group members’ profiles reminded me that I needed to add some things, such as a subhead, and for others, they remembered they needed a photo, etc. I have a solid list of items to work on for polishing up my profile, such as adding that subheadline, making sure I give enough context for what the research is, and adding the title of the book in the title or subheadline. I also had some helpful ideas on how to best end the piece, and I might try to find a better quote after adding in interview questions from Prof. McHugh I should be ready to be done.
I think it went really well. I got good feedback about paraphrasing and putting in important and powerful quotes over just a massive one. As well as finding my headline for my profile, instead of just “Profile”. This helps break down the massive paragraphs and helps me reformat my profile, making it have a sharper angle and edge to it.
As a whole, I got a lot of helpful feedback regarding my profile. We went around as a group and shared thoughts and feedback on each other’s profiles. Alot of the feedback was about how to add more character to the story opposed to making it seem like hard news which was really helpful because that was something that I was trying to figure out when I was writing it myself. I agreed with a lot of the feedback that my group had given me because it was things that I was trying to figure out when I was writing. Another thing that I was given for feedback was to get more of Will’s role as an RA and Presidential ambassador, which was something that I knew I needed and something that I planned on getting into. As a whole I think my paper is in a good spot for the rest of the work I have to do.
The workshop today was informative, it helped with the formatting of my profile from an outsider’s perspective. I was also reassured about my anecdotal lede, which I was previously a bit unsure about, though now understand that it works with this profile. I definitely have to add more to the quotes from other people and Brod himself, which I will have to review my recording from the interview for. I have all the information that I need, it just needs to be incorporated and then refined. I also was advised to allow the ending to conclude with the creative side of Brod’s writing, having him get the last word would also help with this. Overall, the feedback was useful and I look forward to finishing and rounding out this profile.
Journal #20: Reflection on the peer review session went on 4/16
My group Tony, Phoebe and Caitilin all had our profiles analyzed. We went one by one and shared our opinions and critiques of others’ profiles. First Tony went and the general consensus was that there were multiple small grammatical and spelling errors and that there could be other perspectives added like more quotes from different football players that have had positive experiences with Viall. Next Phoebe went and the critiques that I picked up on were there were some run-on sentences and the paragraphs were too long. We also suggested that Phoebe paraphrased some of the quotes that she included as well as some structure changes to increase the readability and the flow of the overall piece. The main critique that I got from my peers was to try to find ways to condense and to definitely add the quote about how Professor Faraday worked on boats for 4 years after her sea semester experience. The last person to get their profile analyzed was Caitlin for Caitlin the main comments were to add a tile and to be more specific about the who,what,when,where,why,how of the organizations that Morgan is involved in, What the organizations do, where they are based and what specifically is Morgan’s role in these organizations.
I think that our peer review session went really well and provided a lot of valuable insight. My group highlighted the sections of my profile that need more clarification and more context, and they also clearly answered all of my questions, and provided potential solutions. Because of their critiques, I’m also working on letting the quotes speak for themselves a bit more, and I’m also doing a little bit of reformatting in some sections. I am also still deciding on whether or not I will talk about LaBonte’s recent talk, as it’s been difficult to find an appropriate place for it while also staying in the word count. Overall, I found this session really helpful, and I also thought the group I worked with were really focused on making all of our pieces better, which was awesome.
Through our second round of peer edits this time in small groups there were definitely valuable topics discussed and important feedback shared. Where this was our second time peer editing our classmates’ papers I feel like we were more prepared and open to sharing honest feedback. In addition to this we had time to prepare our feedback to only share out in our small groups of 4 people. I found the smaller groups to be more beneficial compared to the whole class being included in the feedback process in the sense that it wasn’t as much critiquing but more so a discussion on suggestions and getting feedback from reading perspective on what to improve on moving forward. Comments and topics I found helpful this time around were being able to compare all of our writings and those in the group who had similar elements in our papers and being able to get specific feedback from them was helpful. To elaborate, my piece was missing a few components and supporting details that would come from a student interview being added in. Kristen, who was in my group, had also gone the route of getting supporting details from hosting student interviews so that advice from her was helpful.
Going into this peer review, I was nervous about the length of my article, my use of quotes, and the overall storytelling and character presentation aspect. Looking at the headline, I can add ‘a’ to the beginning, and for the subheadline, I can clarify, ‘what it’s like…’. I could change verbiage like ‘professing’ so it’s less awkward of a title. My group discussed taking a look at some of my paragraphs early on because they’re a bit wordy, so restructuring my words but keeping the same information will help. It was also suggested to add more quotes from Qunlain like her statement about the environment at UNE and the great faculty here. Hearing more quotes from my profile will help add perspective and explanation. Overall, I was relieved that my article wasn’t as rough as I perceived it to be.
Overall I think the peer review was very beneficial to me because I was able to get good ideas from the group I worked with. Going around the group talking about each other’s papers and giving each other feedback on how to make it better was very helpful from both an editorial standpoint and the person getting the feedback. The feedback I received was very helpful because it made me aware on how to reconnect my story back to what it started as. Some feedback I was given was to move up my background of my subject before I start going into using his last name and I was also given tips on my grammatical errors which was very helpful. Overall I did like being in the smaller group for peer review because it was more helpful being able to be in a smaller discussion and not a whole class but I did like the advice from the whole class for the first project.
The peer review that we did in the small groups in class was very beneficial for me because I feel like I learned a lot about what I needed to sort of add to the profile, and I also got a lot of tips on the formatting of my story that I wasn’t expecting, which I found to very helpful when it came to editing my story. I feel like the smaller condensed groups really let us cut to the heart of what everyone wanted to get to and ask good questions about where to take their stories or what maybe needed to change. I think this smaller group format really led to a productive and efficient conversation, that was really nice for everyone in the group.