Peer Review Workshop

1.     Assignment: Peer Review Workshop

·         Resources: Giving Constructive Feedback tutorial and Appendix G

·         Review the Giving Constructive Feedback tutorial at http://corptrain.phoenix.edu/AXIA/CRT205/constructive_feedback.html.

·         Perform a peer review of a classmate’s rough draft. The facilitator will place this in your Individual forum on Day 4. Fill in each block of the Peer Review Checklist in Appendix G.

·         Post the completed Peer Review Checklist as an attachment.

·         Answer the following questions:

o    What does the peer reviewer gain from this activity?

o    What are some drawbacks to peer reviewing?

o    What other methods can you use to provide effective peer feedback?

·         Retain the Peer Review Checklist you receive from your reviewer to submit with your final paper.

Axia College Material

Appendix G

Peer Review Checklist*

What is the main point of this paper?	This paper discusses the clinical diagnosis and criteria for; the different components of Gender Identity Disorder; statistics of Transsexualism; the mental, emotional, physical, familial and societal stressors; different treatment options such as Sexual Reassignment Surgery or SRS; the roadmap to SRS as well as the growing need for professionals who specialize in gender issues.
What is the greatest strength of this paper?	This papers greatest strength would be in the knowledge of the writer.  It is made obvious the author is knowledgeable on the subject and that comes through in the paper itself.
What material does not seem to fit the main point of the paper or does not seem to be appropriate for the audience?	I found the paper to be right on point and could not find any information that seems out of place for the subject of the paper.
Has the author sufficiently addressed counterarguments? Explain your answer.	The author seemed very well versed in all counterpoints and arguments and included information into the paper that would satisfy any questions that may arise from reading the article.
Where should the author add more details or examples? Explain your answer.	This paper is very well thought out and very well done; the only place I could ask for more clarification was in table 2.  Some of the initials were confusing as they were not predefined in the article.
Where is the writing unclear or vague?	The table while very well-done is a bit confusing with the initials that have no predefined assignments.
What is your favorite part of this piece of writing?	The best part of the paper has to be the subject itself, this is an extremely sensitive subject that needs to be addressed and I feel as though the author does this in a very respectful way.
What other comments can you provide for the author?	The paper seems very well thought out and executed.  Aside from the clarification on the table indicated previously I have not issues with this rough draft.  Good Job on this sensitive subject.

*Adapted from Reinking, J. A., Hart, A. W., & Von der Osten, R. (2003). Strategies for successful writing: A rhetoric, research guide, reader, and handbook (6th ed.). Boston: Prentice-Hall/Pearson Custom Publishing.