Article Peer Assessment

 

Criteria

 

The following criteria was used by my core group to review and offer feedforward for our article rough drafts. There was a total of six categories evaluated. Each category contained specific measures with a point value assigned for that measure. The feedforward rubric also offered an area that allowed the reviewer to provide feedforward for each area of measurement.

 

Content

 

• Understanding of the Topic (5 points): Demonstrates a clear and comprehensive understanding of the chosen education topic. 

 

• Relevance (5 points): Content is directly related to the education field and addresses current or significant issues. 

 

• Depth of Analysis (5 points): Provides a thorough and insightful analysis of the topic, incorporating relevant research and perspectives. 

 

• Originality (5 points): Presents unique insights, ideas, or approaches that contribute to the field of education

 

Organization and Structure 

 

• Introduction (2 points): Engaging and clearly states the purpose and significance of the publication. 

 

• Logical Flow (4 points): Ideas are well-organized, with smooth transitions between sections and paragraphs. 

 

• Clear Thesis/Argument (4 points): Clearly articulates a central thesis or argument that is maintained throughout the publication. 

 

Writing Style and Clarity 

 

• Clarity (4 points): Writing is clear, concise, and easily understandable for the target audience. 

 

• Professional Tone (2 points): Maintains a formal and professional tone suitable for an academic publication. 

 

Evidence and Support 

 

• Use of Research (3 points): Integrates relevant and credible sources to support claims and arguments. 

 

• Data and Examples (2 points): Includes concrete data and examples to enhance the credibility and persuasiveness of the publication. 

 

Critical Thinking and Reflection 

 

• Critical Analysis (3 points): Demonstrates critical thinking skills by evaluating and questioning information and arguments. 

 

• Reflection (2 points): Offers thoughtful reflection on the implications and applications of the discussed ideas in the education context. 

 

Conclusion and Implications  

 

• Summary (2 points): Summarizes key points and findings effectively. 

 

• Implications for Education (3 points): Clearly discusses the broader implications of the publication for the field of education. 

 

Average Score

 

Three reviews rated my paper using the established criteria, and my average score was a 49.

 

Rater 1 – 49

Rater 2 – 48

Rater 3 – 50

 

Reflection on Article Rating

 

      I thoroughly enjoyed the rating process for the article rough draft. The process was insightful by giving and receiving feedforward. As I read the articles of my peers not only was I excited to help them enhance their articles, I also learned a lot through reviewing their articles. While learning more about ideas in education, I was also able to leave with takeaways that I could apply to my article in regards to structure and organization. Moreover, as I provided suggestions to my peers, I also rechecked my article to verify I had implemented some of my peer suggestions where applicable.

     

      The three raters that rated my article provided excellent feedforward. I know a numerical score was a requirement of the assignment, but the greatest benefit was being able to see the comments and suggestions of my peers within my rough draft, then read their feedforward for each criterion on the rubric. There were simple things I had overlooked, certain terms that required clarification, and areas that needed further explanation. Having an extra set of eyes on an article I plan to submit for publication was both helpful and offered a sense of confidence in moving forward with publication.