CS 380 Peer Reading Assignment

Assigned: 15 November 2017. Due: 27 November 2017

Peer Reading Assignment

You will read and offer feedback to two of your classmates on their 10-12 page research papers. Your peer feedback will probably be about 1-2 pages long. It is your responsibility to get two of your classmate's papers to peer review. If you are in the class on November 15 with the ability to make your paper available, this will happen easily. If you are not, you need to make this happen. Your peer reviews will be evaluated and that evaluation will affect your quiz/peer reading grade in the class. The due date is the date by which you should get the peer review to me. You are welcome (and encouraged) to get a copy to the writer as soon as it is done. For the copy you give to me, please be really clear about who is the writer of the review and who is the writer of the paper.

In your peer review you should address the following issues. You do not need to answer every question, but you should provide feedback in each of these areas:

• Holistic evaluation: How effective did you find this paper, overall? (Is it an A paper, do you think?) What made it work/not work for you? What is its greatest strength? Its most damaging weakness?
• Programming Languages content: Does the paper clearly define an abstract programming languages concept or set of concepts? Does it provide examples that look at issues in particular programming languages? Is the discussion clear to someone who might not be familiar with the ideas and languages?
• Development of ideas: Did the writer adequately develop the topic throughout the paper? Did he/she provide appropriate levels of detail and support? Did the paper move easily back and forth between levels of abstraction and specificity? What questions did you have as a reader that were left unanswered?

  Did the writer show a good grasp of the material presented? Are there any places in the text where the presentation is unclear, confusing, self-contradictory? (Where?) Did the writer show critical thinking in his/her evaluation of others' research? Did the writer have any original insights into the questions being presented?

• Organization: Was the organization of this paper clear, overall? Did you ever feel "lost" as you read? (Where?) Did the writer provide adequate transitions between different parts of the paper? Are there any places where you would want to see a smoother transition? (Where?)
• Language use: Did the writer show skill in using language? Are there any sentences which are awkward and/or ambiguous? (Which ones?) Was the word choice appropriate (and varied)? Was there any unnecessary repetition and/or wordiness? Was the language appropriate for a formal, academic paper?