What I was mainly able to
learn from this post is how I can improve my own draft and make it better in
the areas that we are supposed to be criticizing others in. This will help my
all around work.
- The
name of the title and author for the project you reviewed.
There is no title included in the draft.
The name of the author is PJ Noghrehchi.
- A
working hyperlink to the project you reviewed
- An
explanation of the peer review activity you selected for the project you
reviewed
The peer review activity that I selected was the content
suggestion activity. What I did was make suggestions based on what is needed to
be done based on the rubric and the conventions of a podcast.
- An
explanation of how you think you helped the author with your feedback (in
other words, how did you help them make their work better?)
What I suggested for PJ to do was to add some of the conventions
to his podcast. He did not have music, interviews, or credits in his podcast so
those were the true recommendations that I made for him. With these included,
his podcast should seem more complete.
- An
explanation of how you incorporated something from the suggested Student’s
Guide readings (or any other course materials, if you’d prefer) into
your feedback
The three ways that I incorporated the Student’s Guide readings into my recommendations is recommending he
make adjustments in his Sources, Transitions, and Conclusion. These are the
areas that he lacks depth in, and the addition of the things I stated above
will help his podcast with these sections out.
·
One thing about their work
that you admired or think you could learn from
PJ does a great job in his descriptions
and keeping an interest-grapping tone throughout the podcast. He was able to
make his podcast seem interesting during the entire time which is a hard thing
to do. I also think he did a great job on his introduction of himself as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment