Aaron Raboi

October 28, 2020

ENC 1102
Alexander Mooney

1. What were the most significant comments you made on a peer’s paper? Summarize 2-3
sentences
a. In both the introduction and the methodology there were some parts that were
unclear. I made sure to point out the parts that didn’t make sense.
2. What were the most helpful comments you received from your peers? List 3 and explain
why
a. The most helpful comment I got from my peer was about adding more to my
introduction. I was still working on my introduction and have yet to mention what
my actual research question is, which made my paper difficult to understand.
Outside of that I do not feel like many of the other comments were helpful or
related to my paper.
3. What were the least helpful comments you received? Why do you feel they weren’t
helpful and what could your peer do to improve their feedback?
a. The least helpful comments I received were about my work cited and
introduction. One of the comments was about whether I had used all my
secondary sources in my paper which I have not done since I have not even
finished my research yet so I don’t have any results to use in the discussion. The
second most useless comment was about my introduction where my peer
suggested that I start talking about different aspects of coaching that are not
related to my paper at all. This is because he was thinking of a football coach or
soccer coach rather than an athletic coach who rather than a team has clients. I
feel like my peer focused on the wrong aspects of the paper which is what
contributed to some not so helpful comments.
4. What changes would you make to your own feedback if given another chance? How will
you implement these changes for the next peer-review activity?
a. The paper I was given was not very developed so there was not a ton of parts to
peer review. The parts I was given seemed a little confusing so it was also hard
to peer review these sections. I would have liked to have a more developed
paper that I could actually read and look into the different parts of the paper to
see what made sense and what was vague.