The second time around, peer review was about the same; not all that helpful. Using WetPaint was a cool change because I had the opportunity to review the entire class-- not just the two other people from my group. This was fun because I could at least skim through some other essays and get a feel for what everyone else was doing. It was interesting to see all of the different routes that people chose, without necessarily reviewing their work.
The actual reviewing process was easier with GoogleDocs because I was able to leave comments, instead of changing my font color and writing within someone's text, as with WetPaint. The most frustrating part about using WetPaint came after I finished my first review of a classmate's essay. As I clicked "save," WetPaint told me that someone else was editing the text and we had to merge our comments, which meant rewriting them.
As with the first peer review session, I wish that I would have recieved more input regarding my essay. The GoogleDoc session only lent me the help of two classmates, while the WetPaint session only gave me one. The person who reviewed my Style Rules essay was pretty helpful and gave some good examples, however, it would have been nice to see comments from more than one person.
WetPaint is a cool tool, but I think it was wrong for this particular project. I liked the idea of reviewing essays from people not in our class, but the amount of people included was so large that not everyone's essay recieved adequate attention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment