Peer+Review

Peer Review page


 * **Score** || **Comments** ||
 * 2 || I thought that some of the headings which you had listed under “Career Development Needs of Students” should have actually been put under a different label such as “Career Options for Students”. Overall I thought the review was readable, but didn’t necessarily flow from one point to the next. ||
 * 4 || There were a couple of grammatical errors I found. I changed the color of one within the review. For the most part, I thought it adhered well to graduate level writing standards. ||
 * 4 || I thought you had a nice blend of direct quotes and summaries, and that you tended to lean more towards summaries which indicates higher levels of thinking. In-text citations seemed good. ||
 * || 4. The “Psychometric Properties of the CTI” section was hard for me to understand. I’m actually not sure that you really needed to include it. ||
 * || 5. I can see how you might use the information included in your literature review to develop interventions aimed at preparing students for the challenges they may face after graduation. You also may include activities to help students find careers that not only suit them, but also will be in demand by the time they graduate. ||
 * || 6. I am not sure where to place your review on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Your paper is organized by themes, but not all seem directly relevant to the overarching topic. I am also not sure that the findings from different sources are linked to each other very often. However, your main ideas are presented with the appropriate source material supports. I guess that would put you somewhere between Analysis and Synthesis. You’re almost there! ||


 * **Scores** || **Comments** ||
 * 2 || There is a lot of good information within your literature review. It is clear by the use of your different subheadings that you took material from several sources and were able to find some unified ideas. Transitions need a lot of work. The headings helped to separate your ideas but I felt that the ideas were too separated and it was hard to follow. I couldn’t always find a connection between different subheadings. If you can find a way to organize all of your ideas into a more flowing theme that may help. Try to tell the audience who your group is, what their needs are, and what tools you can use. ||
 * 3 || This section was a little difficult to rate because your literature review did not follow the typical narrative style. I think the information that you provided in paragraph form was written well and did not have very many errors if any. Some of the areas where you listed information could be written into paragraph form and explained more in depth. ||
 * 4 || Your APA format seemed to follow the correct guidelines. On a Wiki this may be difficult to observe because it is not being written exactly in the APA style. Just make sure the references are italicized correctly. I saw two that had the page numbers italicized and I highlighted them in blue just so you could check the rest of them. ||
 * || 4. When reading the sections on psychometric properties of the CTI, I got a little confused and had to reread the section. I wasn’t sure if this kind of data should be included within the literature review. Also I found myself rereading sections because I wasn’t sure where they fit in to the overall scheme. The green jobs and future projections seemed out of place to me even though I recognize why you included that information. ||
 * || 5. I feel that your literature review made clear many of the issues that college students must face in their career development. However the objectives of a possible workshop are not made as clear. You briefly touch on the ideas of the college-to-work transition but I wasn’t sure exactly how this would be transferred into a workshop for current college students. ||
 * || 6. This literature review seemed to be somewhere between the application and analysis stage. I was able to see main ideas from several sources being tied together but some of the main ideas were not linked directly to the main theme of your paper. I think it would help for your group to outline all of the information you have collected here. Organize the ideas you have and then discover the underlying themes in all of your research. Once you do that you can rewrite the information given into a clearer literature review. ||

Goal: I would imagine you will be attempting to help us “the college student” understand the similarities and differences of college expectations compared to world of work expectations and how to adjust to the differences. Objectives: to have us produce a sample resume and develop a skill set to apply to an interview. || Assumptions made by the writer: Comprehension… doesn’t seem to be much input from the writers of this particular lit review, just description of articles Main organization: synthesis Tips: Analysis ||
 * Score || Comments ||
 * 3 || I had a little difficulty following the lit review as the transitions seemed to be abrupt and didn’t necessarily follow a logical path. It felt that it was jumping from descriptive to thematic in style. I also felt there were too many headings that if omitted may allowed for better transition sentences to the next idea. ||
 * 4 || There were a few spots where grammar needed to be fixed – a simple read through may help. Otherwise, in general your spelling and sentence mechanics were acceptable. ||
 * 4 || Under “Future Projections” I’m sure there is a method to citing that would allow you to only cite your reference once rather than repeatedly. ||
 * 3 || I’m not sure of the relevance to dissecting the “**Psychometric Properties of the CTI” **** section. It seems out of place to break that down to the extent of describing the experiment. Can you generalize the findings of the research and report that instead? ** ||
 * 4 || I would expect to see the following interventions: CTI inventory, resumes, mock interviews.
 * 4 || Skills used: application


 * **Score** || **Comments** ||
 * 3 || I had some difficulty reading the article on my first attempt. I found it beneficial to go first preview the upcoming headings and then go back and reread earlier sections, I think that the literature review could have greatly benefited if the group would have spent a little time in the induction of the paper providing a brief description of the information in each section. Some of the sections didn’t seem to flow into the next and it seemed as if there was a different writer in some sections than from previous sections. ||
 * 5 || There weren’t really any grammar errors or sentence fragments that interpreting my ability to read the literature review. There were one or two parts in the paper where words weren’t properly spaced, but that probably occurred between the transition of cut, pasting, and reforming the paper onto the wiki space page. Overall, I think that the writing was grammatically sound. ||
 * 4 || I do not have my APA manual with me and as such, I cannot give this group a comprehensive review based on APA standards. I noticed that the group used hyphenations in the paper, but without my manual I am unsure if they were used in the proper fashion expressed in the manual. I think I feel comfortable discussion in this section is a lack of citation that I noticed in several different areas of the paper. There are several times within this literature review that the writers make statements about basic habits and behaviors without providing a citation for such information. However, I do not think it was the group’s intention to plagiarize any information. This may likely be the case of assuming that their reader(s) will have a certain degree of knowledge about these issues and as such, a citation may have seemed unnecessary. ||
 * 4 || As previously mentioned, I had to reread the first section of the paper because I didn’t grasp the writers heading system at first. Once I understood the heading system, I was able to better understand how some sections flowed into the next. ||
 * 4 || After reading this literature review I can clearly see how this group might build workshops around the notion of increasing knowledge about career related options and planning. One of the ideas that I thought would be beneficial would been to have participants at one station learn how these gaps in career information typically form and then have them learn how to overcome such shortcomings at another station. ||
 * 3 || I would rate this article on the analysis stage of the taxonomy. There is a good deal of relevant information presented, however it seems to me that some information doesn’t link directly to other information or the main idea. ||


 * Scores || Comments ||
 * 2 || Headings contributed to the readability, but it seemed as though there were not transitions connecting the information. Connection of research to a broader point was adequate despite the lack of transitions. There is no conclusion to the paper!!! ||
 * 3 || Do not know if it is appropriate to use bulleted information in a literature review, in the bulleted section, there is a typo “lack of lack of” ||
 * 3 || Not sure if it is appropriate to utilize tables in a literature review, this would seem to go in another section if this was a “fleshed out” research paper ||
 * || 4. It did not make sense to include the psychometric properties of the CTI in such detail. Even if your group plans to use this measure for the workshop, this section could be more concise. The inclusion of superfluous numbers distracts from the overall point of the literature review. ||
 * || 5. Interventions of practicing job interviews and imparting information on what employers are looking for (e.g., on resumes), intervention of using CTI? Goal of educating the population on the requirements of the employer? Unsure of goals and objectives by reading this paper ||
 * || 6. Knowledge: Throughout the paper, there is a recognition of the relevant ideas, but they are not organized in a coherent fashion. There are a lot of statistics that do not easily relate to each other. ||


 * **Score** || **Comments** ||
 * 3 || I felt that your literature review was written very well and the overall use of your articles was good. I personally appreciated the use of the headings throughout the paper and the way that it was broken down. It does make it flow much better and made it easier to read. However, under some of the headings the information was very broad and didn’t include enough information. These could have been combined with others. ||
 * 4 ||  ||
 * 4 || The ADA writing standards were followed correctly. ||
 * 4. || I thought that the paper was extremely clear. I did not find myself having to reread anything and overall everything made sense to me. ||
 * 5. || There is an immense amount of information included in this paper that could transition right into the workshop. It would be interesting to see the entire process ||


 * **Score** || **Comments** ||
 * 2.5 || # 1. The paper wasn’t really written in a narrative form (which is understandable if it was not made clear), but that made it hard to rate this because there are no transitions. When writing your next literature review, I would make it more like a narrative and be sure to use clear transitions when leading into another topic. The introduction looks good and gives the reader a good idea about what you’re going to be informing us about. I would try to connect all of the topics you have together, and instead of having so much random data and facts, I would stick to clear goals, objectives, and then interventions. By presenting it that way, it will be easier for the reader to understand and learn the point you are trying to get across. It seems like there was a lot of good information, but not very necessary for this paper or this topic in realizing what the problem areas, objectives, and interventions are. ||
 * 4 || # 2. Grammar and spelling and sentence structure was good. Again, I would just write more like a narrative and make sure to use transitions when moving on to the next topic. ||
 * 4.5 || # 3. Your APA was very good. Just make sure to correct et al. (needs a period) ||
 * || # 4. I didn’t really have to read anything over, but it was easy to understand because it was broken down into such small topics. I can’t really say what it would have been like if it were in a narrative form. ||
 * || # 5. I think you need to go through the paper and find the information you guys think it most relevant. There needs to be clear goals, objectives, and interventions. ||
 * || # 6. I would say you guys are in the knowledge and comprehension stage throughout your paper. By reading the articles and taking notes or making an outline that may help you. You need to pull all of this information together to make one whole narrative and idea. ||


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 4 || Very easy to read. The headings are a huge help when it comes to following the information. One suggestion: some of the terms, for example service and manufacturing sectors, may need further explanation or examples because not everyone may know what type of jobs are exist under those classifications. Also, when explaining the stages involved in the college-to-work transition, I think you could explain those transitions and what is happening within each one. ||
 * 4 || Although I liked the headings, I think some of the information could be developed further and explained in more depth. Where information is bulleted, I think the information could be typed out into a paragraph form. Overall, I think the review had good structured sentences, and used appropriate grammar. ||
 * 5 || APA guidelines seemed to be followed correctly. ||
 * || I do not think it is necessary to include the information about the CTI in such detail. This section of the review did get a little confusing. If you feel like this information needs to be in the lit review, maybe you could type out some of the information and present it in a more clear way to make it easy for a person of any background to understand the information. ||
 * || The interventions, goals, and objectives were very clearly stated. Several interventions which I expect to see in the workshop are practicing job interviews and putting together resumes. ||
 * || I would place your lit review somewhere between the analysis and synthesis stages. I think most of the information provided is focused on the details rather than how these ideas can be combined into a larger picture. Also, I didn’t see any conflict presented within the research. ||


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 3 || I thought this was extremely readable but it almost looked like a different type of paper and not a literature review. It actually reminded me of an article. It was clear and concise but lacked in some of the personality and interpretation by the authors. The headings helped but they segregated everything into separate ideas instead of a flowing paper. ||
 * 4 || I believe it was written well and was a good piece of work but not as much a literature review as much as a meta-analysis of research. ||
 * 4 || I think that the use of APA standards was done appropriately and effectively. I liked the balance of quote and citation. The heading system sacrificed flow and some ideas because it chopped them off rather than transitioning well. ||
 * || I didn’t really see much need to re-read any sections of this paper. ||
 * || I think this research paper can be used effectively as a tool for a career workshop. I think role playing and practicing would be a real benefit for a workshop. ||
 * || I would place this somewhere between application and analysis. I feel as though a lot of what you did was well written however it appeared that it did not flow as well and there appeared to be a lot less author ownership for ideas than there could have been. Just regurgitating information is sometimes nice however really analyzing the data would bring this paper up a few levels. ||

Higher Education Lit Review|| **Score** || **Comments** ||
 * **Score** ||  **Comments**  ||
 * **3** || **The organization was clear and understandable, though I think that you’ll need some more discussion in order to identify broader points (this is related to the comments about Bloom’s taxonomy).** ||
 * **4** || **There were some grammatical errors (others were noted by other people):**
 * 1) **a.** **“** Irrespective of these differences, majority of students sought college…” I think that you need an article before “majority” ||
 * **5** || **The APA citations seem correct.** ||
 * || **The section with statistics to prove the validity of the approach didn’t seem so relevant, but I am also not very good (actually, I’m awful) with statistics, so this may not be a fair critique.**  ||
 * || **It seems like you have some material necessary for a workshop, especially towards the end of the paper. You might want to identify some overarching themes that can unite all of the pieces that you presented in the article.**  ||
 * Peer Review: Application of Bloom’s Taxonomy**
 * **Score** ||  **Comments**  ||
 * **3** || **When I first looked at your literature review I loved that it was broken into various headings. I also liked the chart that compared college to the workforce. On the other hand it was hard to determine the connections between the different headings. I feel as though they could have connected in a better way.** ||
 * **4** || **I think you did a nice job but my question with your review would be related to the bulleting and listing of facts. Is that supposed to be in a literature review or is it supposed to be all narrative?** ||
 * **4** || **It seemed as though to me that you followed the correct APA guidelines.** ||
 * **4** || **The one main part that did not make sense to me was the reliability coefficient scores but that is because that is not a strong area of mine. I thought it was well written otherwise.** ||
 * **4** || **I feel as though the information that you provided is clear and it could definitely be used in order to build into a larger workshop. I noticed that you emphasized the importance of various skills such as resumes and job interviewing skills. I would like to see different interventions that could be used.** ||
 * || **I feel as though you provided a lot of main ideas and information from the various sources. I would say that this is at the analysis stage.**
 * **4** || **I feel as though the information that you provided is clear and it could definitely be used in order to build into a larger workshop. I noticed that you emphasized the importance of various skills such as resumes and job interviewing skills. I would like to see different interventions that could be used.** ||
 * || **I feel as though you provided a lot of main ideas and information from the various sources. I would say that this is at the analysis stage.**
 * 3 || I thought the information that you have presented in your lit review was readable. I liked your introduction. I believe that you have a lot of great information, but you have failed to combine the all the information in a way that demonstrates the specific needs of this particular group and how the interventions can help. You need to now be able to thread all of this information together to make sense of how this all relates. It just appeared as chunks of random information. ||
 * 2 || Again, a lot of great information, but it needs to be condensed. By the end of it, I had forgotten what your goal of all this information was. ||
 * 3 || The information you did site appeared to be correct, but I felt like there was a lot of information that was not specifically cited or that there was so information that I wasn’t sure if a previous cite was still in reference to what you were talking about. ||
 * || The information you had was clear, but it was such an overview that I was overwhelmed with it. The section on the **Entrepreneurship, seemed like a random area to focus on. What are the basic needs of this specific population? ** ||
 * || I can possibly see some areas that you may decide to highlight such as utilizing the CTI ||
 * || Comprehension: you summarize the main points of articles. Some of this appears as basic knowledge or basic facts taken from the articles. There appears to be the assumption if the article published it then its worthy of inclusion (ie: the statistics from the CPI). After reading articles, ask self how it relates to the topic and provide evidence. || ||