Evaluation: Self as a Peer Responder December 5, 2006

Quote three specific pieces of feedback (not the whole responses, just parts of a response) that you recieved on your work that were particularly helpful to you in revising (not editing, revising the content).  Include links to these coments.

1. “The only thing I can think of to “address” is where you wrote, “I am suggesting that a team be assembled” -I would maybe list the professionals that would be included in that “team”. “- Missy

2. “One thing to address is that you are writing from a “young” child’s perspective -how young is this child? I’m wondering because you used some difficult terms: disorder, diagnosis, physician, aspirating, & breakthrough. Is the child at an age where he/she would understand these terms?” – Missy

3. “I would like to address the lack of statistical information in the letter. I think that it may help proving your case.” – Sara

Quote three specific pieces of feedback (not the whole responses, just parts of responses) that you gave to someone else that you believe were most likely helpful to them in revising their own work. Include links to these comments.

1. “I think that you should address putting into the entry how the mother is reacting to all of this, also to demonstrate how the child thinks they are reacting to it all. It would demonstrate to the audience how certain things are handled and explained.” - Whitney H. for Emma

2. “I think that you should address using normal. What do you mean by that? Maybe if you gave another word or so, normal wouldn’t seem so cliche!”  -Whitney H. for Holly

3. “I would like to address the issue of having no examples. I think that to make the letter seem more heartfelt, examples such as certain cases or feelings/emotions would help the letter. ” – Whitney H. for Holly

Examine examples of the first two items above and write about what this information tells you about the kind of responses you give.

By reading the examples of the comments that I give, I do not believe that I am specific enough. I also think that I play it safe when giving feedback to others.  I Do not want to offend anyone, and in the end, most likely do because it seems as though I do not put effort into reviewing their work.  I also need to be much more in depth in the comments that I give to others.  Sometimes when writting comments, I know what I am trying to explain to them, but it’s hard for me to put it into my own words so that they are able to understand it.  I give very vague, undetailed comments that need much work.

Write a goal (behavioral objective) for yourself as a peer responder.  Specificically (this is an important word as I do not mean generally), the next time you participate in a peer response groip, what do you intend to do differently?

I will think critically about the works and what they are trying to accomplish before beginning to comment on any aspect of the document.  I will also be more detailed and desciptive in my feedback.
 

Self-Evaluation November 30, 2006

Accuracy:
1.Does the author cite sources used to develop the site? Yes
2.Is it possible to verify the legitimacy of these sources? Yes, some of them have links to the websites or articles used and also are listed in one form (reference page).
3.Does the background of the author point to knowledge of the subject covered? The author does not have a lot of knowledge on the subject besides an abundance of research – according to the Preface & About the Author, the Author has taken few classes where Dysphagia was slightly, but minimally discussed.  The author does not claim to be an expert in the subject however on the site.
4.If the site is research-based, does the author clearly identify the method or research and the data gathered? Yes. Not on each page does the author explain their goal or reason for doing work, however, on other linked documents, the reader could identify reasons for the project.

Authority:
1.Do you recognize the author’s name? Yes.. I do, but it is not a known name to anyone.
2.If you did not recognize the name, what type of information is given about the author? Position? Organizational affiliation? E-mail address? Biographical information? There is a page, About the Author, where minimal information about the author exists such as University attended, name, undergraduate level of study, where she is from and small background details.
3.Was the site referenced in a document that you trust? Yes, all documents on the site contain the works that were used to write them.  If a reader would like to do further research, there is information to do so available.

Objectivity:
1.Determine what is the aim of the author or organization publishing the site. The Author is attempting to complete a Project for a class and inform others about Pediatric Dysphagia through a person who is made up to help portray the information to others through a number of documents and project parts.
2. What is the purpose of the web site? To answer a number of questions about Pediatric Dysphagia that others may have such as what it is, who has it, what can be done…. etc. It is also to inform others through many voices and for many audiences of the problems it can create and what can be done.
3. Do you trust the author or organization providing the information? I do, because it’s my own and I know how and from where the work was derived. However, if a professional or expert was looking for credible resources I would not. The site states that I am not a professional or expert in this topic and a number of works are also my own. Even though numerous resources have been used and sited, it is in no way a professionally made website.

Currency:
1.Is the date clearly displayed? There are dates in a number of places on the weblog. By the titles of each page and post and comment placed, however, no other dates are available for the reader to view.
2.Can you determine what the date refers to? The date is the date of which the individual assignments and works were completed.
3.Are the resources used by author current? The majority of the dates used were recent, however, very few of them do date back to approximately the 1980s. 
4.Does the page content demand routine or continual updating or revision? The information is relevant and pertinent without constant revision, however, it has been updated and revised many times.
5.Do the links on the page point to the correct Internet site addresses? Yes. All of the sites to now go to the correct site they were intended to.

Coverage:
1.Are the topics covered on the site explored in depth? Yes, almost to a repetitive manner but are very informative.
2.Are the links on the site comprehensive or used as examples? Yes, they are for the Unifying genre.
3.On the site, are the links relevant and appropriate? Yes. All of the links on the site link things to other documents within the site excluding the bloglines which link the reader to other outside resources which in some way, tie into the project information.
4.How valuable is the information provided? In my opinion, it is very valuable.  An immense amount of time and effort has been put into creating the information and data that fill the site. It is very valuable it times of time and effort.