Members Learning Team Use University Phoenix Material  Case Study

Excerpt from Case Study :

members Learning Team. Use University Phoenix Material, "Case Study Analysis Peer Review Form," located Week Three student website a guide reviews.

This paper is a peer review of two students' case analysis papers. The paper analyzes the writer's thesis, their ability to stay on topic, and their conclusion styles. Each peer review ends by providing suggestions on how the students can make their papers have a better impact on the reader.

Peer Review for Case Study Analysis

Reviewer question: What is the author's thesis?

The thesis for the case analysis is: "The challenges that are keeping Carl's new hires from starting are not enough copies of the orientation manual for the 15 new hires, missing pages fro the orientation manuals, applications were not completed and transcripts were not sent to clinic for mandatory drug screening. In addition, the room used for the orientation has been reserved for computer training seminars for the month of June by Joe" (Duong, 2012).

Reviewer question: Is the thesis clearly stated? If not, how would you help the writer restate it?

This thesis statement is not clearly stated and it is difficult to identify due to structural issues with the paper. The paper begins with a background about the case but there is not a formal introductory paragraph that states the main purpose of the analysis and the proposed solutions to the problems. The thesis would be better restated: The challenges that can prevent Carl's new hires from being ready by June 15 include the need for 15 complete orientation manuals, missing application information, incomplete drug screenings and no room where the orientation can be held; and the best way to combat challenges would be for Carl to work with his supervisor, Monica who needs the employees ready and Joe who has booked the orientation room for another purpose, to coordinate the orientation arrangements.

Reviewer question: Does the essay's body stick to the main topic? If not, where does it digress, and how could the writer revise the paper to make it stay more on the main topic?

The body of this essay does stick to the main topic of the paper, which discusses solutions to Carl's problem of needing to prepare 15 new employees for an upcoming orientation. The body clearly states the problems that Carl is facing and several suggestions that directly address these challenges. For example, as a solution to the problem of needing a room for the orientation, the paper suggests "one alternative is to speak with Joe to discuss if he can have the computer training seminar in another room on June 15... Joe reserved the room for the month of June but he can make arrangements to hold the class in a different room for one day" (Duong, 2012). This solution directly addresses the issue of needing to use a room that was reserved for that day and how these arrangements can be made. The body of this paper continues to address each issue that could prevent the 15 new employees from being ready for the orientation on June 15. Each solution is supported with logic that reflects an understanding of the problem and Carl's goals.

Reviewer question: Does the paper contain any ambiguously-worded or confusing sentences? Please list them below and offer a suggested revision for each one you identify.

This paper included a couple of confusing sentences that makes it difficult to understand what the writer is explaining. One example of a confusing sentence is: "In the process of ensuring the new hirers will be on track to attend orientation on June 15, a few things were on Monica Carrolls, the Operations Supervisor checklist for Carl" (Duong, 2012). This sentence could be reworded to say: Monica Carrolls, the Operations Supervisor, had a few things on her checklist for Carl to ensure that the new hires would be on track to attend the June 15th orientation. This would have made it clear who Monica Carrolls was as well as the purpose of the checklist.

Reviewer question: Which closing strategy did the writer use? Is the closing effective? Why or why not? Offer a revision suggestion for making the closing more effective.

The writer used a summarizing and "now what" closing strategy. The closing provided a summary of the recommendations presented throughout the paper and why they would be useful. The writer also used the "now what" closing strategy that addresses the need for change by providing "suggestions for how to start" (Scott, 2009). It was effective because it restated the important information from the paper and used it to make a final recommendation for enact the change that would accomplish the set goal. To make the conclusion more effective, the writer could have elaborated a bit on the implications of enacting their suggestions, but the information provided in the conclusion was sufficient.

Reviewer question: Please give the writer feedback regarding the essay's effect on you.

The overall effect the essay had was positive. The challenges were clearly stated and sufficiently addressed with logical solutions. Each solution was explained in detail and by the closing of the paper it was evident how each issue would be resolved. The only aspect of this paper that had a negative effect was the structure and grammar. The grammar could have been better with more proof reading and editing; simple mistakes were left, indicating a rushed editing job. The structure of the paper also made it a bit difficult to identify the thesis, although the point of the paper was clear. Including a simple introduction after the background could have presented all of the challenges and the proposed solutions. The paper could have then continued to discuss the challenges and solutions in more detail.

Peer Review for Case Study Analysis Paper 2

Reviewer question: What is the author's thesis?

The thesis for this paper is: "I Personally believe that once Carl successfully hired fifteen new individuals he should have managed this better so that this wouldn't happen" (Parker, 2012).

Reviewer question: Is the thesis clearly stated? If not, how would you help the writer restate it?

The thesis is not clearly stated because it lacks details about the problem and information about the suggested solutions. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the challenges the Carl is facing and suggest solutions. This purpose should be reflected in the thesis as well as the body of the paper. The body of the paper focuses on better training and resources for Carl, more contact by Monica, a change in the company's policy to have drug screenings and physicals as an application requirements so they are completed before an individual is hired and a better company website to communicate these requirements to new applicants. Based on these recommendations, a better thesis could have been: This problem arose because of Carl's lack of management skills and lack of support from his supervisor; to prevent this issue Carl needed better training from his supervisor, more contact from Monica, and the company needs to make improvements to their hiring policy.

Reviewer question: Does the essay's body stick to the main topic? If not, where does it digress, and how could the writer revise the paper to make it stay more on the main topic?

This paper sufficiently stays on topic. The writer discusses the main issues that Carl has and offers logical suggestions to prevent this problem from occurring in the future. However, to make the logic of the paper flow more smoothy so that the topic is more cohesive, the writer needs to address the paper's structure. If a background about the case is provided in the beginning, they can focus the body of the paper on solutions and not have to keep explaining details of the case. Also, certain paragraphs that discuss similar information…

Cite This Case Study:

"Members Learning Team Use University Phoenix Material " (2012, April 14) Retrieved August 22, 2017, from

"Members Learning Team Use University Phoenix Material " 14 April 2012. Web.22 August. 2017. <>

"Members Learning Team Use University Phoenix Material ", 14 April 2012, Accessed.22 August. 2017,