Peer Review Critic Sheet: Research Paper

Name of Peer Reviewer:

Name of Student Whose Paper Is Being Reviewed:

Directions: Answer the following questions.

1. Check your peer's rough draft to see if they have included all of the
following required components that are listed on the assignment sheet:
a. 1) an introduction with appropriate background information about
their genre and the group that uses it;
i. uses “activity system” (Kain and Wardle) to describe how
members of their group use tools/genres to achieve particular
goals… makes a clear connection to the field of Writing Studies
ii. defines key terms necessary for the reader to understand the
focus of their paper, their group, and their literate activity
b. 2) a synthesized literature review that follows Swales' three CARS
moves;
i. “establish the territory” by reviewing previous
literature/research with AT LEAST three secondary
sources/voices (at least one is their “framing” course concept)
ii. “establish the gap” with their research question
iii. preview of how they will “fill the gap” with their primary
research methods
c. 3) a detailed description of their methods for collecting and analyzing
both primary and secondary data;
d. 4) a thorough explanation of their findings with supporting evidence--
such as direct quotations and answer(s) to their research question(s);
i. an analysis of their primary research data using the ideas and
terms of their framing concept(s)
ii. sufficient reasons, evidence, warrants, and (if appropriate)
visualizations of their data
e. 5) an explanation of why their research matters, what readers can
learn from reading their paper (especially members of the group they
studied), and what future research is still needed; and
f. 6) a complete Works Cited;
g. 7) appendix items: copies of data collection instruments (i.e., textual
analysis questions) and samples of genres analyzed
 h. If any of these parts are missing, list them for your peer. If you
have suggestions about the kinds of content they can add, where they
can add this information, etc., please describe those suggestions here.
You’re missing everything past the “Findings/Analysis” section. There’s also
no works cited.

2. Analyze the "answer" to your peer's research question(s). Does it fully

answer all the questions they included in move #2 (establish the gap) of their
literature review? Are these answers supported by evidence and data from
the Findings section? Does the answer make sense? If you have any advice
about ways they can improve their answer/claim/support, suggest them here.
No answer; there’s nothing past the “Findings/Analysis” section.

3. What aspects of your peer's rough draft are good? Why do you think they are
good? Remember that Straub (the author who gave us a ton of advice about
being good peer review partners) said we should be specific in our praises.
The Disney College Program is an interesting topic. You specifically mention
all aspects of activity theory and label them out.

4. What aspects of your peer's rough draft could be improved? Be specific. Is

there missing information? Are you confused by any of their explanations?
Do you see a mismatch between parts of their paper (i.e., their research
question and their answers)?
From what you have, you should probably source activity theory and the like.
Aside from that, you should read over for grammar mistakes and wording,
especially in the paragraph talking about your prior knowledge and what
you’re investigating (para. 3), it was confusing to read at first. Your concept
seems to be fine, though!

5. Check the formatting of your peer's rough draft. Have they included a
heading, title, and page numbers? Have they used the correct font size and
double spacing? Have they included a Works Cited with correctly formatted
citations? Have they included all the required appendices on separate pages?
If any of these parts are missing or could be improved, list them and explain
how they can fix them.
You just need page numbers and Works Cited!

6. What other comments, questions, or suggestions do you have for your peer?
Nothing; everything else is good!