Peer Review Partner’s : Sokphhanee Ly
Directions:
- Review your partner‘s three draft written assignments: Rationale, Goal and Objectives (you are only evaluating the goal and objectives, not causes and PRE factors), and Program Narrative.
- Mark each written assignment according to the rubrics provided.
- (1) Circle or highlight the value you assign for each criterion listed.
- (2) Tally the score for each written assignment. Rationale points range from 7 to 28. Goal and Objectives points range from 3 to 12. Program Narrative points range from 7 to 28.
- (3) Additionally, provide constructive, open-ended comments in the notes section on the bottom of each rubric. Identify specific areas for improvement (including recommendations of how to improve) as well as specific paper strengths (including paper highlights).
- The sandwich method is typically useful when providing feedback. The sandwich method consists of positive comment, negative comment, positive comment.
- Please provide useful, critical comments. I am looking for more than cliché phrases like good job and keep up the good work.
- (4) Upload your completed Peer Review Form to Blackboard (under Course Content Tab in the Peer Review Folder). Please note you can type in and mark up this Word document.[unique_solution]
Notes:
- You will be assessed on the thoughtfulness of your feedback. The Peer Review Assignment is worth 25 points.
- You are expected to incorporate peer and professor feedback for final program plan you turn in at the end of the semester.
| RATIONALE | ||||
| Criteria | Needs Work | Emerging Competence | Competent | Sophisticated |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Purpose | Little of the evidence presented is helpful in achieving the purpose of the assignment | Some of the evidence presented is helpful in achieving the purpose of the assignment | Most of the evidence presented is helpful in achieving the purpose of the assignment | All the evidence presented is helpful in achieving the purpose of the assignment |
| Presentation of evidence about the scope of the problem | No evidence is presented to support the assertion that the health problem is important
| Little evidence is presented to support the assertion that the health problem is important | Some evidence is presented to support the assertion that the health problem is important | Ample evidence is presented to support the assertion that the health problem is important |
| Identification of risk causes & consequences of the health problem | No risk factors have been identified or discussed | Few risk factors have been identified and discussed | Some risk factors have been identified and discussed | The risk factors/causes of the problem have been identified and thoroughly discussed |
| Use of the relevant literature | No relevant literature has been reviewed or used | Little relevant literature has been reviewed and used | Some relevant literature has been reviewed and used | The relevant literature has been extensively reviewed and used |
| Citations | Citations have major formatting issues and are missing information | Citations have either major formatting issues or missing information | Citations have some minor formatting issues | Citations are in correct APA style |
| Organization | The background is not well organized | The background is somewhat well organized | The background is mostly well organized | The background is well organized |
| Grammar and usage | The grammar and usage have major problems that prevent the author’s meaning from being understood
| The grammar and usage have major problems, however they do not keep the authors meaning from being understood | The grammar and usage are mostly correct and fluent | The grammar and usage are correct and fluent |
Notes: I liked the rationale and think it provides a good background on the problem that exists within Davao, Philippines and what this program is aiming to address. The rationale contains a lot of evidence about statistics related to childbirth, maternal mortality, and teen pregnancy, but doesn’t clearly state why that evidence supports the need for an educational campaign. Additionally, there are some areas within the narrative that provide data but no source. I like the first half of the paper, but it is quite evidence dense and doesn’t fully communicate to the reader who the target population is and what the program is going to be. Overall, there is a lot of good information within the paper supporting why the program is necessary and the seriousness and complexity of the issue, but I think the beginning should provide a clearer definition of who is affected by the problem and why a change is needed.