Evaluation: Self as Peer Responder

Quote three specific pieces of feedback (not the whole responses, just parts of a response) that you received on your work that were particularly helpful to you in revising (not editing, revising the content).  Include links to these comments.
1. “maybe you could add more positive outcomes for after the surgery”
2. “maybe the clinician could ask the mother about the actual implantation process”
3. “you could mention some of the things Caden does in speech therapy”

 Quote three specific pieces of feedback (not the whole responses, just parts of responses) that you gave to someone else that you believe were most likely helpful to them in revising their own work.  Include links to these comments.
1. “you might want to address is defining phonological errors? We all know what that means, but other people may not“
2. “The only thing I’m not sure about is if you have to list your sources on this page? “
3. “perhaps specifically define that in your poem in some way. I originally thought it was just on Autism”

Examine your examples for the first two items above and write about what this information tells you about the kind of peer responses you give.
        When looking at my responses I gave to my peers I feel like the information was too general.  At the time I felt like it was specific, but looking back I could have given more specific information about how to improve the content of their work.  I also see that I focused more on the mechanics of their work than the content.  I think this was because  I do not have as much knowledge on the specific subject as the author does; which in turn made it hard for me to give feedback on the content.  Although I found it to be somewhat difficult I tried to give constructive feedback, and I hope it was helpful to my peers.

Write a goal (behavioral objective) for yourself as a peer responder.  Specifically (this is an important word as I do not mean generally), the next time you participate in a peer response group, what do you intend to do differently?
The next time I participate in a peer response group I intend to try and give more feedback on the content of their work.  I also intend to try and respond as someone who has no knowledge of the area; I think this would help in seeing things that I assume everyone else knows. Since we all get caught up in the information because we deal with it a lot, I think we all seem to assume sometimes that everyone knows what we know.  I think this would help my peers and myself in giving more insightful information to each other.

Self-Evaluation

Site Name and URL: Computer Networking in Communication Disorders  http://kmk22.wordpress.com/

Accuracy
1. Does the author cite sources to develop the site? yes
2. Is it possible to verify the legitimacy of these sources? Yes, active links to the sources, if appropriate, are available. Other sources are listed with all of the bibliographical information for the audience to locate and verify.
3. Does the background of the author point to knowledge of the subject covered? Yes, the information about the author indicates she is an undergraduate student studying the field of Communication Disorders.
4. If the site is research-based, does the author clearly identify the method of research and the data gathered? Yes, websites that were used to conduct research are listed, links are available, and sources used  for research are correctly cited.

Aurthority
1. Do you recognize the author’s name? Yes, it’s Me!!
2. If you don’t recognize the name, what type of information is given about the author? Position? Organizational affiliation? E-mail address? Biographical information? An About the Author page is linked providing details about her, and links to the school she attends, Marshall University and the school’s Communication Disorders department website are provided.
3. Was the site referenced in a document that you trust? Yes, it was  for class.

Objectivity
1.  Determine what is the aim of the author or organization publishing the site. I think if I did not already know, I would assume the site is for some sort of class
2.  What is the purpose of the web site. Serves as a research project.
3.  Do you trust the author or organization providing the information? Yes

Currency
1.  Is the date clearly displayed? Yes, dates and times are listed beside each item. 
2.  Can you determine what the date refers to? When the page was first written? When the page was first posted on the Internet? When the page was last revised or updated? The copyright date? I would assume the different dates indicate when they were written. Some things are also divided into the different weeks. 
3.  Are the resources used by the author current? Yes. Some are current and some are older.
4.  Does the page content demand routine or continual updating or revision? To this point, the content seems to be routinely/continually worked on when referring to the dates.
5.  Do the links on the page point to the correct Internet site addresses? Yes.

Coverage
1.  Are the topics covered on the site explored in depth? Yes
2.  Are the links on the site comprehensive or used as examples? Most don’t work
3.  On the site, are the links relevant and appropriate? Yes, they are appropriate.
4.  How valuable is the information provided? Pretty valuable for those interested in the topic.

        After doing this evaluation on my own MRP I see a few things that I need to add to my website.  However, I am not exactly sure where to add them since we have so many different pages that are linked to our sites.  I also tried to think as someone else while filling out the evaluation, but I still know that my view point about the website is biased since I am the author.  I think it would help to have someone else view the site and fill out the same evaluation information to get a more realistic and unbiased point of view.  I feel like that would really let me see what other information I need to add in order to make it more reliable and valid.