Peer assessment in educational settings

Peer Evaluation

To me, this line of thought is essentially a summary of some of the lessons taught in the initial readings. What it lacks is a sense of in-depth insight and of self-reflection. As a reader, I am less interested in the fact that one agrees with the material than I am interested in why he or she agrees with the material. If we examine this posting on the basis of the eight different criteria for critical thinking, it becomes apparent that this posting lacks sufficient critical insight.

The first component of critical thinking is clarity. Even in this, the posting lacks. There are a handful of observations, but there is no central thesis around which the argument is constructed. The paragraph on critical thinking segues awkwardly into an unrelated paragraph on leadership. The thoughts throughout the paper are random and disjointed. There is no clear argument here.

With respect to relevance, the posting is relevant in the way that it discusses issues that were raised in the course's initial readings. This relevance, however, is only skin deep. The author seeks to examine the question of why we should take this course specifically, but then simply recounts the contents of the readings without bringing this content back to the original context of "why?." Without any central argument and any particular sense of context I also find that this posting lacks a sense of logic. What I need to see from an opinion about the readings is some form of central argument, backed up with evidence from the readings. There are recounts of the readings, followed by statements of loose opinions about leadership and the degree to which the readings impress the author. None of this serves to build a logical flow from points expressed to a conclusion.

With respect to accuracy, most of what is contained in this posting can be taken as accurate. The author first recounts the readings, and there is not much cause to dispute the author's interpretations of the readings. The author then offers personal opinions to round out the posting. As an outsider, there is little dispute that I could offer with respect to another's opinions. The question of accuracy is moot with respect to opinions.

I find this posting, however, to lack depth. I find that it consists largely of recounts of existing knowledge (the articles), followed by surface-level personal opinion. A statement such as "the ethics part of (the) readings also impresses me" lacks any depth whatsoever. From my perspective, depth could be provided in a number of ways -- a sense of context, personal reflection, or more complex analysis of the issue -- whereas the author instead simply made a quick statement of judgment. Better would have been a reflection of why the ethics part of the readings was so impressive, or an explanation of why the author agrees with Gardner's argument.

With respect to significance, the posting has temporal significance in that it reflects the current subject matter of this course. However, the lack of depth and the lack of new thought reduce the significance level of this posting substantially. As a reader, I gain nothing from this post -- no insight and no sense of having learned something new. Ultimately, significance derives from the creation of something that is not only temporally relevant but is lasting in its profundity, and I do not see that here.

Precision reflects the degree to which the author clearly elucidates his or her views. In this case, those views are relatively precise, if threadbare. The author is clear enough at times -- "I truly agree with Howard Gardner…" -- and explains his/her point about dividing into different parts the materials by explaining those different parts in sequences. In this respect, despite the overall poor quality of the message, the message is relatively precise.

Breadth is an issue with this posting. The shotgun approach has been used here -- mentioning multiple readings without any attempt to tie of them together. The paragraphs do not flow from one to another, and there is no attempt to tie them together either in the introduction or the conclusion. So what little breadth there is remains merely superficial. Breadth should be reflected in the author covering a wide range of ground, with depth, and then tying all of the points to the central argument.

There is nothing particularly unfair about this piece, beyond the problem of surface-level thinking.