Peer Review 2

I thought the wiki technology was a good tool for peer review, but I didn't like it as much as google docs. I thought it was easier to use some features in google docs, such as strike through to show deletions. One thing that was better about the wiki was that we could view more of our classmates work, which made us learn more about style because we read a wide variety of rules. One of the problems with the wiki was that students didn't review each other's papers evenly, but this could be corrected if students were assigned groups, from their own class, to review in. Also, the wiki allowed us to work with people in other classes and I thought that was an interesting experience because it demonstrated the power of the internet. It would be easier to choose papers from other classes if students write which class they're in on their introduction page, which links readers to their essay. I wish I would have received feedback from more people. However, the feedback I got was very helpful. I think I gave better advice during this review than the first one. Most people seemed to have the same problem I had, which was trying to expand the content. I tried to make suggestions about information that would relate to their rule. I could have used more suggestions for how I should approach the examples and what kinds of examples I could use to demonstrate my rule. With both google docs and wiki, I found that the technology made the experience of peer review much easier than traditional hard copy editing.