Neubert&McNelis SQR #5

Summary:
The Article begins with and example of a student evaluation to an essay. It shows that peers are not very comfortable with critiquing other peers work. They would rather be general about it rather than specifically pointing out errors and revisions. For that reason a method was brought forward called "PQP" or "Praise-Question-Polish." Basically, what this means is you say what you like about the essay followed by something you dont understand followed by something that could help improve the essay. Students responses were usually said to be vague, general but useful or specific. The article gives explains why some of them are good responses and why some of them are not helpful at all. After students were taught the method of PQP they were able to give more specific response.
Question:
Why is the PQP method more effective rather than just making a response without it. (When critiquing essays)
Response:
The PQP method is very effective because it gives a good balance of constructive criticism and praise when it comes to responding to other peoples essays. I think peer to peer learning is a very good way to enhance our revising capabilities. Without the PQP method I think I would just be one of those students who gives general responses. I would probably say something along the lines of "I liked your essay. It was good. I would fix the last paragraph." but now after reading the ariticle my response will be more specific and I will try to pin point every detail of what needs to be altered in my peers essays. I will definately use the PQP method. Its effective because it tells you the good traits of your essay, the things you need to work on, and the things that are unclear and need more explanation. I feel like the PQP method is full proof for critiquing essays. Its going to be very helpful when we use it to revise our second draft's.