The peer editing process is dangerous ground. It can be remarkably effective, but also incredibly painful. The self that Faigley describes students are searching for lurks very close to the surface in a student draft. The most effective papers do indeed have a personal voice speaking out through them, even if they are relatively dry research papers instead of the rather voyeuristic personal vignettes preferred by most of Faigley's colleagues. However there is a fine line between expressing personal voice and making assertions of reality based merely on personal perceptions and not actual research with supported documentation.
Therefore I think the most effective feedback I can provide as a peer are my first reactions to a piece, including if I "liked" it. I think almost all of us want a little positive reinforcement before we get slammed with any criticism. So I will be looking for what I feel is expressed well - is the point of the paper clear, is there documented evidence to back-up any claims, does it make sense structurally, are there some well-written paragraphs, sentences, or thoughts? Since there are multiple revisions in the future, I'm not sure I will get too picky on grammar corrections, although if something is just awful I might mention it.
Basically at this point in the process, I think the most effective feedback should be proactive, "I liked this point but it needs more (clarification, evidence, information)." I don't think this is saying what you want it to say" and "I don't quite understand this point" and similar comments would be helpful I think.
I will not be nitpicking punctuation or slamming any of it. Hopefully I can provide some concrete suggestions rather than just generalized affirmations.
No comments:
Post a Comment