Given that an essay is already bad, peer review is the highlighter that scribbles over the already glaringly obvious flaws. While it doesn’t hurt to emphasize the parts the paper is already lacking in, I find that in the peer review process there’s not enough time to not only identify the problems, but also to suggest cohesive solutions to them. In my experience, the kinds of problems I find most revelatory in the process are the small nitpicky stylistic and grammar errors that dot every rough draft. While these errors are still important to fix, they certainly do not take priority over the argument of the paper, the logic behind the argument and the flow between thoughts and ideas. Peer review does help, but with the given time constraints of the process, it doesn’t help with the most important parts of writing.
In contrast, the time constraints are beneficial in the sense that in order to review the essay properly, quick analytical thinking is required. Reading through other people’s essays and decomposing their argument and logic is a good way to improve analytical skills similar to the close readings we are assigned. In the end, peer review develops different skills depending on the way the activity is implemented.
No comments:
Post a Comment