On Wednesday, we spent our class time getting into our groups and peer editing another group's work. We had a list of questions that we were to carefully consider and then answer about what the other group had done, effectively and ineffectively. One thing we were instructed to do was to rate the work out of 10 and be very, very honest, and sure not to inflate the scores, because in the end it would only make the group work less hard and end up with a lower grade. This makes a lot of sense to me and is something that I've noticed about peer reviewing in a lot of classes. People tend to not want to make each other feel bad and have a tendency to just say "Wow this is great as it is, good job," when they might actually have useful criticism.
We told the other group that their main problems were in their proposal memo. Their web site was awesome and actually fairly complete and polished as it was. The memo, though, needed some work. It read more like a list of creative devices than suggestions for change.
When we received our peer review comments, the criticisms were not very surprising. The design of our site could definitely use some tweaking, particularly in spacing (proximity) and font continuity (repetition). We're in a good position now because we know exactly what we need to do from here and how to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment