#10

I've found both ways we've done peer review has been helpful. Working with one person is effective in being really thorough for the person I am working with and for myself. I put more time and effort into it since there is only one person to help. The group review is also effective because this time you have multiple opinions and critiques compared to one. I think it's helpful to have a variety of ideas compared to one. However it's not as thorough as the single peer review and is easy to get off track. Both ways work well but i prefer group review.

    One of my strengths as a peer reviewer is honesty. I try to give my real opinion and criticism without sugar coating it too much. I notice some people are afraid to say anything other than "it was good" because that isn't helping the person you are working with. I think it also helps people see things from other perspectives a lot more . I think I;m also helpful with getting someone to have more focus and structure in their paper. Which is odd because that's a problem I have with my own. My weaknesses though are noticing grammatical errors and helping others with good beginnings and endings. Generally I have no idea where to begin or end my papers so it transfers and shows in my peer review.

    My ideal peer review would being able to choose a group which I believe is strong and would actually be helpful to my writing. It would also be in a group so I can have more feedback and ideas. I would also like to spend two classes on peer reviewing so it would be thorough enough.