2.+PEER+FEEDBACK

Peer Feedback:

Score Comments 5 I thought your wiki space was very readable. It had great transitions and good flow. 5 I saw very few grammar or spelling errors 5 APA looked good. I thought you had great flow. There were no sections I thought were hard to read. I was really impressed with the amount of theories you mentioned and made connections with. Synthesis Your group did a great job of reporting your findings and examining the implications of the theories. I think your wiki looks great. I can tell you put a lot of hard work into it.

1. 5 2. 5  3. 5  4. Concepts were clearly expressed and delineated. Well identified areas of limited research and need for further research. Some “tense” issues, I think (past vs. present). Strong in each of the areas, especially the interventions area, I think. 5. Not sure of goals and objectives…my grey matter is a bit mushy - my problem, just sayin…

6. Much of the text is considered to be realizing an Analysis level with regard to Bloom’s taxonomy; some synthesis as well. So, to realize the evaluative level one might critique the quality of source articles… Good product - wiki syle!!

The Bloom’s taxonomy level around the Analysis level where the group has created their own ideas of the research and they are integrating their ideas. Just collaborating through creating the workshop may help the group raise to the highest level of the taxonomy
 * Score || Comments ||
 * 4 || The readability of the lit review was pretty high when I could not hear the voices coming through the vent. I believe there are many great points present in the lit review and I believe it is relevant to career development. ||
 * 4 || I believe that you all have followed the graduate level writing standards well. The APA looks good and the grammar and sentence structure is well developed. ||
 * 4 || The APA style seemed to be done well. The writing standard seemed to be followed well and the in-text citations were used properly. The references look good as well as the headings. ||
 * || The introduction may be lacking a little bit. Maybe explaining to the reader more of what the literature review is exploring and what you are trying to relate the GLBT population to such as career development. ||
 * || Some of the lit review shows what could be incorporated in the workshop. I could imagine many interventions being part of the workshop because this is a large section and the most important for counselors helping the GLBT population develop their career. I believe that an intervention that may be important is the exploration of why the individual is struggling with their career due to their sexual orientation. I think that the career counselor has a much bigger role in this persons life than just career development. The workshop could go over these interventions in more depth and making the counselors understand their role and how they may have to step in and out of that role often. ||

Score Comments 4 Nice transitions between paragraphs and headings are good. 4 Very strong writing at an advanced graduate level 4 Dr. Baker mentioned the use of past tense for APA style. (ex. “Datti (2009) stated” instead of “states” so check your tense. Overall, the paper is very clearly written and enjoyable to read. One suggestion is to add a conclusion to pull it all together. I’m looking forward to seeing your presentation on this. You have a lot of interesting interventions and address numerous theories. Nice work! Synthesis - The paper is organized thematically and you did a nice job of integrating and combining ideas.


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 4 || Look at transitions between sections so that there is a logical move to the following section. ||
 * 4 || Grammar and spelling were fine. ||
 * 3 || Need to use past tense or present perfect tense. ||
 * 3 || Wasn’t sure of some of the wording in the introduction. ||
 * 4 || It would seem that there would be a section on assessment measures and how to understand the results of the assessments and how it applies to potential career development. Review of theories. ||
 * 4 || Application - seemed to be able to apply the theories in the writing beyond a basic regurgitation of material. ||

Score Comments 5 I think that you did a good job with introducing the problems that GLBT individuals have to deal with regularly. It provided an appropriate preface to the work that you are presenting. These theories can be hard to understand, but you made them very presentable and they were easily grasped. 5 I did not notice any problems with the aspects of your writing. It was professionally presented. 5 You appropriately cited everything both in and out-of-text, but I did not notice any direct quotations in your material. I am not sure if this was intended or not, but just make sure that if you edit to include some that they are done properly.

I am not quite sure what you will be presenting in your workshop. I feel like most of the material is information that is geared toward counselors and I am curious what you will be presenting to the “students” of this workshop. I sense that you will be using a career development model that is encouraging at its root, but I am interested to see how you apply these theories. Synthesis-- In Bloom’s taxonomy, I would place you in the realm of Synthesis. You have done a very good job to analyze the information that was presented to you in the articles/websites you referenced and from that, combine it with your own opinions. It is important to find the information that is most integral to what you are presenting and you have successfully done this.


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 4 || “Unique Needs” – very informative, I did not know a lot of what you provided here ||
 * 4 || “Applications to Theory” – good transitions between paragraphs ||
 * || Overall, excellent lit review – put together well, concise, informative, good flow; I’m really looking forward to the presentation ||

5 Very well articulated writing. Seemed to understand the needs, interventions and application to theory very well. The paper flowed nicely and transitioned between the different topics with ease.

5 This was a well-constructed literature review. A lot of important information was covered but in a concise and meaningful way.

4 Met APA standards for citing references. Was unsure as to why there was not an introduction or conclusion heading.

I found this paper easy to read overall even with all of the material covered throughout. I thought things were paraphrased nicely but original thought was also used well.

What I took away from reading this literature review was the need to give support to the GLBT group as well as raise awareness of the constant challenges this group faces unfairly. This can easily be applied to the presentation in a meaningful and insightful way.

I see a lot of analysis when reading this paper, pertaining to Bloom’s taxonomy. The articles and information used throughout supports the groups view and fits nicely in the paper.