Other Connections Resources
Web Directories and Search Engines
On-Line Newspapers and other News Sources
Resources for Writing Instructors
Scholarship on Hypertext and Computer-Assisted Pedagogy
English Home Page
Allyn & Bacon Home Page
ab_webmaster@abacon.com
©1997
Allyn & Bacon
Once you are comfortable with some of the logistics of electronic peer review and discussion, you should also think about some strategies for making those exchanges more productive. Remember that many people find criticism hard to take. Your goal should be to address problem areas without alienating or overwhelming your peers.
Productive Discussion and Review As you respond to a classmate's work, be careful to focus on the positions that are taken rather than the personalities associated with them. For instance, instead of saying that a person is naive to believe that animal testing causes only suffering, you might politely point out that experiments have potential medical benefits that might help to end other forms of suffering. If nothing else, this objection should make the author aware of the need to qualify his or her statements and perhaps prompt the author to refute this oppositional argument in a more fully articulated revision.
One helpful way of offering advice is by phrasing criticism in a conditional (if, then) statement. For instance, imagine an author who has failed to provide support for most of his or her points. A reviewer could say, "You don1t provide any evidence, so your argument makes no sense" or "If you provide some statistics or cite some studies to support your statements, then your argument will be stronger." The tone of the second critique is much less confrontational than that of the first because it offers suggestions for improvement.
As you review a piece, you should also consider some of the strategies of critical reading that we outline in Chapter Five, particularly the tactics of sympathetic and skeptical reading. Initially, try taking a sympathetic approach to a peer1s paper. Rather than offering a knee-jerk reaction to the arguments you come across, take some time to hear the person out. Read first with an eye on comprehending the gist of the argument and arriving at some sense of the author's overall purpose. Once you1ve assessed the author1s position, you can perform a more skeptical analysis, focusing on the major problems of the piece.
Similarly, avoid imposing your own agenda on the works that you review. Particularly if you disagree with the position that an author is taking, you should withhold judgment based on your assumptions about the topic and evaluate the argument in terms of its claims, reasoning, and evidence. From your opposing point of view, it will be easy to point out evidence or assumptions that the author has overlooked, but do so with the goal of strengthening the argument that the author is making rather than promoting your own ideas.
Another way to make your criticism more useful is to focus on specifics. Rather than saying, 3I find the piece confusing,2 note the spots that gave you particular trouble. By pointing out that the transition between the first and second sections is awkward or that the third paragraph seems to contradict an earlier statement, you help the author to locate those areas that need the most attention.
Finally, as you review others' work, it is a good idea to offer alternatives whenever possible. You don't want to completely revise the work for the other person; but instead of just pointing out what is wrong, you can often point toward possible solutions. If a paper seems to lack depth, you might suggest that the author limit the scope of the project. Perhaps you could highlight one or two aspects that you found most interesting or relevant and steer the author toward these. If a piece seems incoherent, you might try to pick out the main ideas and suggest that the author revise the project in terms of these specific themes. Providing some alternatives will make your criticism less threatening and help your partner to begin thinking about revision.
Of course, these strategies are simply meant to guide you as you conduct peer reviews. Your topics and assignments will determine the way you approach the work of your peers. But if you try to focus on specifics, offer alternatives, and read with the ultimate goal of improving the author's work, then you should be able to provide worthwhile criticism.
Adapted from Connections: A Guide to On-line Writing