Exhibit Peer Review Assignment

Final Exam Digital Exhibit: Peer Review - 1102

The second part of building your exhibit will be to review another student's outline.

Logistics

Please post your peer review in the Peer Review Discussion Board for this week. First, go to week 15 and claim a partner, by replying to their post. Next, go to Peer Review Discussion Board and create a thread with your claimed partner's name. By posting a fellow-classmates name from amongst those that submitted the outlines, we will avoid anyone not getting reviewed. Please do not review someone's outline if that student has already been claimed.

I'm posting this assignment as a txt and html file so that you can cut and paste it easily.

Peer Review Assignment

One of the challenges of doing peer reviews is avoiding the opposing polls of nice-but-useless and mean-to-the-point-of-cruelty. Nice-but-useless feedback comes in the form of compliments that can't help improve your work. For example, if someone writes "nice thesis," does that mean they agree with your thesis, your thesis is well supported, or your thesis is kind? Mean-to-the-point-of-cruelty peer reviews are when someone decides to shed their own personal pain by saying the most horrible things possible about your work. I don't need to model this for you, you read trolls on the internet all the time.

Your review below is focused on two things: 1. You are holding up a mirror to someone and saying "this is what I see." You aren't judging the quality of the outline, rather, with your peer review you are saying to the original writer "I read your work this way, is that what you intended." 2. You are offering actionable feedback, that is feedback that will help a person improve their final exhibit by keeping the effective parts and modifying the ineffective ones.

Your peer review has two parts.

Part I: A Mirror

Did the outline fulfill each of the learning outcomes and assignment requirements?

Yes or No. If no, say why you think the outline did not fulfill the learning outcome. For example, if there was no map, say "I saw no map in your sources. "

  1. Included six historical sources (three primary sources, three secondary sources).
  2. Included one non-digital source (a physical book or historical object that you viewed in person)
  3. Included a defined topic that relates all of your sources to one another.
  4. Included a period of time less than 500 years. Your thesis can connect sources that are up to 500 years apart.
  5. Included sources that addressed these six modules: Time (a dated source), Images (a picture), Maps (a GIS map), Words (a voyant analysis of a text), Numbers (statistics about your topic), Social Media (a post about your topic), with one source for each module.
  6. All sources must pass the PISA (publication, institution, sources, author) credibility test.
  7. Included an explanation in three sentences why you think your sources support your thesis.

Part II: Actionable Feedback

Please answer the following questions in complete sentences.

  1. What three things about this exhibit do you find interesting or you believe to be well done?
  2. What three things are the most important for your partner to address to produce a quality exhibit?
  3. Is the outline's thesis provable, non-obvious, tied to an appropriate historical subject for our course, and narrow (specific) enough that it can be addressed with only six sources? If you answer no to any of these questions, please explain.

Dates

  1. Exhibits Lesson 2 Assignment: Complete peer review (through D2L) for one other student. Due December 14th, respond in the Exhibits Assignment 2 Peer Review Discussion. NOTE: This assignment is submitted in the Discussion Section of D2L.
  2. Final Exam: Complete your Omeka exhibit: Due December 19th at 8 p.m. NOTE: This is a Wednesday, not our standard Friday due date.

Grading Rubric

  • Peer reviewer answered all of the questions with a good faith effort, including complete sentences where appropriate (one point for every question answered fully.)
  • Peer reviewer demonstrated respect for the intellectual efforts of their partner.
  • Peer reviewer wrote with standard English usage.