Peer+Feedback

Score Comments 3 Transitions could be improved so that it is one flowing document instead of three separate sections. May help to make it more concise. Seemed much longer then the required length of the review. Possibly incorporate the self-efficacy information in one or more of the other sections and condense the research portion. I felt that there was unnecessary information in the research section. Headings should be developmental, needs, and interventions. Research could be summarized throughout the sections. 3 Check commas. I felt that there were places you could insert them throughout the review. Should be written in the past tense or present perfect - saw present tense in the document. 3 Headings should be fixed. Paragraphs should also be indented. Second paragraph of self-efficacy section was missing the year for the Legum and Hoare citation. 2 In general, I feel that the research section needs to be scaled down. I felt bogged down by all of the details, which were not specifically related to the importance of the review. 3 I expect to see certain interventions in the workshop including career exploration, developing a plan of study, and understanding how strengths now, can equate to a possible job opportunity later. How to create a career portfolio and filling out assessments and interest inventories, then discussing the results so that the child understand what it says about them. How to create a genogram and how to use the information to learn more about careers and potential people that have influenced them and their interests or what they are looking for in a future career. 3 Comprehension level because did not seem to be able to make the material more concise and understand what information was more important.

Score Comments 4 Good introductory paragraph clearly states purpose and importance of topic 4 “Needs of Middle School Students” - very good content expressed clearly and definitely relevant 2 “Needs of Middle School Students” - poor transitions from one paragraph to the next, it doesn’t seem to flow 4 “Interventions” - great info “Self-Efficacy” - 2nd sentence unfinished? “Self-Efficacy” - 7th sentence - I don’t understand “Self-Efficacy” - maybe define self-efficacy at the beginning? 2nd para - “in danger of” not endanger? Past tense - Legum & Hoare discussed; missing the year for L&H “Theories and Reseach” section is super long for a lit review
 * Score || Comments ||
 * 2 || The first sentence reads like a fragment. Be careful about run-on sentences (3rd sentence). Provide a summary of what will be included in the literature review. ||
 * 2 || Career theorists suggest that certain factors such as a) curiosity, b) fantasy, c) identification with workers, d) gender stereotyping, e) race, f) class, and e) social valuation affect career development processes for this specific age group (Akos, Konold, & Niles, 2004). -- This sentence is difficult to read clearly ||
 * 2 || You bring up very good points. However, transitions are not smooth and appear jumpy to the reader. Beginning sentences should be a general introduction to the topic, not necessarily jumping right into detail ||
 * 2 || In addition career guidance programs at this age should focus on career exploration, helping students understand how their interests and abilities relate to certain careers. -- Be careful with grammar. Also other sentences in the intervention sections need use of comma’s ||
 * 2 || Consider past tense (especially in Interventions section) ||
 * 3 || Good citing and reference to resources such as the Career Horizons Program, however this can be summarized and not looked at in great detail. Provide, for example, the purpose, main points or results and inferences. ||
 * 4 || Excellent conclusion and summary. Clear and easy to read. ||
 * 2 || Overall, I feel that the smallest section (Interventions) should be expanded and clear about how this will bring you to making a career workshop for middle school students. It would be interesting to find out more about how to make a portfolio, what assessments are helpful… and how you take this information to make decisions. ||
 * 2 || Be sure to follow headings that Dr. Baker suggested: Needs, Interventions, Relation to a Career Theory… I think this will make things come together for your workshop (goals and objectives) and provide an outline/flow to your review ||


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 4 || Very well done, informative, yet easy to follow. Lot of wealth of strategies given in all areas, development, understanding the middle school students needs as well as great strategies. ||
 * 3.5 || There were some spelling and grammar errors, yet for the most part flowed really well. ||
 * 3.5 || For the most part in-text citations, references section, and headings are fairly well done. Just need to work on the proper “tense” ||
 * Feedback from #4 from the sheet for evaluating the Literature Review:

4). Report any areas you had to reread or did not appear to make sense to you. || In general there was a good flow. I thought at times you might have gone into too much detail, for just a literature review. Although it would be great to include all of this as part of your final paper. ||
 * 5). In reading this literature review, is it clear to you how the information contained here might be used to build the larger workshop? What goals, objectives, or interventions might you expect to see in the workshop? || Yes, the literature review is quite detailed and includes a lot of pertinent information, which will be able to transition nicely into a great workshop. Some goals of the workshop would be to create an awareness in the middle school students how this age is significantly important for making the appropriate career decision, whether its further education or looking for the right job. Objectives would be to stress the importance of these 3 or 4 years for decision making about their careers. Some Interventions would be to include parents in the entire process. ||
 * 6). Bloom’s Taxonomy || I believe you would fit into the Application portion of Bloom’s Taxonomy because your literature review flows well and has evidence of research that was well done and well incorporated. However would need to be able to pull it together in with your own ideas to get to the next level which is analysis. Overall Great Job! ||

2 The review was difficult to read in the beginning, but picked up and had great flow with the needs and following sections. The theories and research section was very cumbersome and too lengthy. I don’t think its necessary to summarize each article. Article summaries are often necessary if you are going to critique it and argue its weakness or strengths for further research, but are not often used in article reviews that are not going to follow with research of its own. 3 The first statement is a sentence fragment. There are other grammatical and punctuation errors in the first paragraph. The needs section is very clear, with no errors found, and is direct and readable. The interventions section has a few punctuation errors. In self-efficacy, “…exposed to a work environment are more likely to gain confidence in their skills abilities and.” The sentence cuts off. 4 Overall, the citations look good. There was one section when STEM should have been explained first then (STEM) put after the words that make up the acronym. I had to reread the introduction to figure out what was trying to be said. I would assume that your workshop would focus on exploration and educating what careers are available, rather than decision-making. Different sections seemed to be at different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Some sections seemed more integrated, and I would consider to be at the level of application or synthesis. Other sections seemed more t the level of knowledge and comprehension.
 * Score || Comments ||
 * 2 || The 3rd paragraph in the needs section really does not make much sense. If career readiness is the most researched, then why is there not more follow-up immediately after? The flow of this paper is more choppy than flowing. I would encourage more transitions in the paper and taking out some unnecessary method information about the studies. ||
 * 1 || The very first sentence in this paper is a fragment. Does APA really want papers to use a), b), etc formatting. There were quite a few mechanical and grammatical errors. The second sentence in the self-efficacy section is incomplete. There needs to be a little more synthesis with the studies on how it relates to the issues. There is no need to regurgitate the study in the paper, just the findings and how it relates to your section. ||
 * 2 || The links to the articles should not be in the paper. STEM needs to be indicated after it is defined in the paper, not before per APA. I would review the APA guidelines because there were many errors. Additionally, this paper was not proofread and it needs to be done as there are numerous errors within the content of the paper such as fragments and incomplete sentences. ||
 * || A few of the areas in the paper were very choppy. I would work on making transitions for the paper that will allow the reader for a better understanding of what you are trying to convey. I believe that you have a lot of information that could be formulated into a daylong workshop. With some narrowing, I think that you could make a nice presentation with all of the information that is here. I think that your needs section though could be a little more detailed. Developmentally, middle school years are extremely tough and that needs to be explored much further than it really is. ||
 * || A few of the areas in the paper were very choppy. I would work on making transitions for the paper that will allow the reader for a better understanding of what you are trying to convey. I believe that you have a lot of information that could be formulated into a daylong workshop. With some narrowing, I think that you could make a nice presentation with all of the information that is here. I think that your needs section though could be a little more detailed. Developmentally, middle school years are extremely tough and that needs to be explored much further than it really is. ||


 * 1.** 3: **The major issue I have with your literature review is that there is a huge disconnect between the writing styles used in each individual section. The first section has a significant amount of glaring spelling and grammatical errors. Perhaps this is just the result of lack of editing/time to edit in this stage of the paper’s synthesis. The transitions were not smooth at all, except within a section. Clearly, you guys need to collaborate and work together to make your paper more cohesive.**


 * 2.** 3-5: **I gave you a range because, again, there is a disconnect between the sections. The first section in particular is in desperate need of revision. The subsequent sections become much clearer as I read on.**


 * 3.** 5: **You did an excellent job with the APA citation, but included in that is also the use of proper grammar, spelling, and format-specific word usage (ex: use of numbers, etc.). I know this doesn’t pertain to this issue, but the last section needs to be shortened. It is much too long and contains way too much information. I’m sure within your revision, you can take the time to disregard the repetitive and less pertinent information. The sheer length of this section takes away from the readability of your document.**

1 4 I thought the readability (other than the research and theories section) was great! It flowed well and had a lot of useful information. The only thing I would do differently is editing the headings (which is very difficult in wikispaces!). I really liked the conclusion. I thought it brought the whole review together =) 2 4 I found spelling/grammatical errors in the first sentence. Also, the self-efficacy section of the review had grammatical errors, possibly may need to be referenced more, and needed to include years for the studies mentioned. 3 3 The self-efficacy section of the review had grammatical errors, possibly may need to be referenced more, and needed to include years for the studies mentioned. Also, I’m not sure, but are the articles supposed to be under each section or in an “Appendix” section at the end? 4 - I did not particularly believe that the research and theories section needed to be that lengthy. I think that it may be useful to take out all of the unnecessary information about the studies. Is all of it useful for your workshop? 5 - Yes, it is clear how they are going to conduct the workshop. There may possibly be an interest inventory section, developing a “plan of study” and an introduction of higher education. 6 - I feel as though this group is in the analysis stage of Bloom’s Taxonomy. They have a lot of information referenced in the theories and research section of their literature review but I think they referenced a lot of unnecessary information. They may need to interpret the data a little bit and come to a conclusion about how these references relate to their population.
 * Question # Score Comments

**