Peer Review Guide – L3 (Info)Graphic Exposition

For this assignment, students will need two reviewers: one who will focus on the visual elements (and provide audio feedback) and one who will focus on the text/content issues and provide feedback.

Peer-Reviewer 1
Focus on the visual/material representation. Do not read the textual elements, just look at the aesthetics of the creation. Provide feedback in three levels:

Macro – what is your overall response/impression to the representation. Does it work aesthetically as a whole? If not, what areas speak to you as being off or in need of some edits/revisions.

Messo – look at the relationship of elements to one another. Do they employ good principles of design? Are thing in relative alignment? Is there too much white space so that the representation feels empty? Are there too many elements, so that the creation feels crowded and busy? How does the background design impact the foregrounded elements? Do the colors work together?

Micro – focus on each individual visual (non-textual) element and provide critical feedback about the smallest of issues – i.e., if text blocks are out of alignment by one pixel, if shapes are consistent in size (when they should be), etc. Be sure to mark/comment on each and every detail as to make the author aware of it.

Once PR1 has made notes about the Macro, Messo, and Micro level considerations, he or she should present those comments to the author in audio form (i.e. by recording the audio commentary).

Conclude your audio/video recording with what you feel would be a helpful Revision Plan for the author  (i.e., what to focus on and/or how to address PR1’s comments if the suggests require more than surface-level moves).

Using Canvas Inbox, upload the audio/video file and send it to the author (be sure to send include the instructor on the email).

Peer-Reviewer 2 

  1. Read through the infographic as well as the design rationale with a very attentive and critical eye. Mark any grammatical and punctuation errors you find. Feel free to suggest corrections in the text. But also mark any areas that seem confusing, that are awkwardly worded, or that simply don’t read well for you. You can offer suggestions here as well, but the point is primarily to bring these matters to the author’s attention.
  • Note: this step includes not only surface level matters, but also issues of development and even engagement. Are the paragraphs well-developed? Are there concepts or ideas introduced but not explained? Are there word choices that create tension for certain readers?
  1. Place a number (and circle it) next to all all the critical areas that you feel must be addressed to make this work a better draft.
  1. In an audio or video recording, work through the draft and talk to the author about the numbers you placed in the draft as part of step 2.
  1. Conclude your audio/video recording with what you feel would be a helpful Revision Plan for the author.
  2. Using Canvas Inbox, upload the audio/video file and send it to the author (be sure to send include the instructor on the email).

Authors should revise their work based on the feedback from the peer review and include all drafts and edited/marked copies with the final version.

______________________________________________________________

Points for Reviews
– Quality reviews can earn Reviewer 1 up to 15 course points.
– Quality reviews can earn Reviewer 2 up to 15 course points
– For revising your work based on peer feedback, you can receive up to 7 course points for Peer Review 1 and 7 points for Peer Review 2 reviews.

Be sure to include the Peer-Reviewer Sheet with your rough draft and final drafts when handing in your work. Also, Peer-Reviewer 1 & 2 should send the audio/video recording to you through Canvas Inbox and should cc me on the email.