As you learned in this module. One way to make sure that peer review works for all parties is to use the SPARK strategy. Peer review feedback should be Specific, Prescriptive, Actionable, Referenced, and Kind (Gardner). Specific feedback avoids general or vague comments like “good introduction” or “conclusion needs work”. Instead, more helpful feedback would specify why the introduction was effective or the thesis ineffective. Being prescriptive allows a reviewer to not only give feedback about what is “good” and “bad” but allows the peer to make suggestions. If a thesis is missing direction, a reviewer should give that direction and tell the writer what they could do to fix the issues that are present. Giving positive and constructive notes is fine, but adding suggestions is what will truly help a writer understand the feedback, which leads to the actionable part of the process. Referenced feedback is based directly on the criteria required for the paper. Finally, the kind feedback is one that should be understood but has to be noted.

For this discussion post, we are going to generate a SPARK strategy for peer revision in our class. You will work in groups of four to create five questions for the peer review process. Post one or two questions and then respond to two of your peers in less than 250 words.

Rubric