This peer review was a bit different, I liked the star rating system because the professor asked us specific questions on what to look for, specifically, within the paper we were reading. Instead of just reading the whole paper and picking things out ourselves, we had to grade our peers on specific things that make the paper what it should be. Some cons of this: some people rated with the starts and only wrote like one sentence on how to help the paper, still good feedback, just maybe not enough in some cases.
I liked having the “outside reader” because it gave us a chance to see how our papers would come off to other students in the education community. It gave us a chance to see exactly what we need to add in order for our paper to make more sense to everyone, not just someone in English 328.
This project was already interesting to me, but seeing how many starts I got out of five made me really think about the quality of my paper, not just how many words I got up to. I really like the fact that you had to give them stars (out of five) and then tell them how to improve if they didn’t get a perfect score, or if they did, tell them how they did that. It gives people their strengths in weaknesses in a non-confronting kind of way!
