MKT 245 Grand Canyon Week 5 Assignment Marketing Analysis Research Report: Peer Review

MKT 245 Grand Canyon Week 5 Assignment Marketing Analysis Research Report: Peer Review

Details:

You have submitted the assignment to the instructor for feedback in Module 4, now you will also submit the assignment to the CLC forum for peer-review feedback, this will not incorporate your instructor’s feedback; instructor feedback will be used for your final draft.

Each member of the CLC will review one other member’s rough draft using “Peer Review Guidelines.” Attach a copy of your rough draft to the CLC forum using the following naming convention: “Lastname.Firstname_RoughDraft.”

Attach a copy of the Peer Review Guidelines (with writer’s comments) document using the following naming convention: “Lastname.Firstname_PeerReview.” Important: Use the writer’s name (i.e., yourname) when naming both files. Do not use the name of the peer reviewer.

You are not required to submit this assignment to Turnitin, unless otherwise directed by your instructor. If so directed, refer to the Student Success Center for directions. Only Word documents can be submitted to Turnitin

Peer Review Guidelines

What is Peer Review?

The greatest advantage for using peer review is the reciprocal benefit to both the reader and the writer. Obviously, having someone else review your material or focus on specific aspects of your writing will result in feedback that can help you improve your paper. Additionally, the reviewer benefits in two particular ways: First, the peer reviewer is able to see alternative ways of presenting the same material and learn new writing techniques, especially if the reviewer and writer are students submitting assignments for the same course. Second, the act of constructively reviewing another’s piece of writing–with the intention of providing specific feedback–allows the reviewer to see their own writing in a new and critical way. Both of these advantages for the reviewer can help improve their own writing development.

Responsibilities of the Writer

As a writer, you should view this feedback as an opportunity to get constructive feedback from someone else. However, ultimately it is your piece of writing, so you must decide whether or not to make the changes suggested by the reviewer. Above all, you should be positive and open to accept the critical feedback of others, since the purpose is to help you improve your writing. Do not see the feedback as an attack on you but as an opportunity for learning how to make your writing better.

Responsibilities of the Reviewer

As a reviewer, it is important to remember that you have been invited to help another person by giving feedback about their work. Writers can feel vulnerable during this process so be respectful and professional, but honest, in your feedback. It’s a good rule of thumb to follow these five rules when reviewing another person’s paper:

1. Read the paper once without comments so that you get a feel for the whole piece.
2. Provide a focused summary of feedback that uses a rubric or a checklist to support your narrative comments.
3. Target big ideas or broad skills that will have a significant impact across the entire piece. For example, recommending that they reorganize certain parts so that the flow of ideas are smoother and more coherent is better than talking about the proper use of commas.
4. Use constructive criticism with sensitivity to the writer’s feelings by providing specific feedback about how to improve the piece, such as, “I liked this part and was wondering more about the context. Can you relate support of breast cancer awareness to the company’s mission or target market? How does the cause (breast cancer awareness) fit in with the company and what it is selling? How is this cause related to a social responsibility issue?
5. Be sure to identify what’s “good” in the paper as well as by being positive about the things the writer is doing right. Reinforce their efforts and those skills that make the piece effective. Think of the ”sandwich approach,” i.e., start with mentioning something good about their writing, discuss some areas for improvement, and then finish up with some suggestions for solving the weaknesses.

Instructions for the Writer

1) Please fill out the “Writer’s Comments” section below.

2) Attach a copy of your rough draft to the CLC forum using the following naming convention: Lastname.Firstname_RoughDraft.

3) Attach a copy of this document (with the writer’s comments below), using the following naming convention: Lastname.Firstname_PeerReview.

4) Submit both the rough draft and Peer Review Guidelines document to the CLC forum by the end of Module 3.

5) Important: Use the writer’s name, i.e. yourname when naming both files. Don’t use the name of the peer reviewer.

Writer’s Comments to the Peer Reviewer

What is my purpose and who is my audience for this piece of writing?

What is the central theme or main point I want to make as a result of this piece of writing?

In what specific areas would I like feedback about my writing?

Instructions for the Reviewer

Use the following checklist to focus your comments.

This checklist contains the same criteria in the rubric that the instructor will use to grade the reports (the rubric is located at the assignment drop box). Using this checklist provides a set of criteria to guide your thinking, and will help you provide better feedback that is tailored to the specific piece of writing. The checklist will also help you avoid giving overly generic or unfocused suggestions.

Writer’s Name:

Peer Reviewer’s Name:

Checklist

Please fill out the “Reviewer’s Comments” section below before returning this word document along with the rough draft for your peer. Then attach this document and the rough draft back to the CLC forum.

Reviewer’s Comments

What is your general impression of the writer’s effectiveness, given their purpose, the audience, and the central point they wanted to make as explained above? What did the writer do well in this piece of writing?