Peer Review for Mike Duffek

            This blog post will describe the peer review I preformed for a student in a different section. It will describe how I helped him make his work better, and how I incorporated something in from our readings.

1.     I peer reviewed Mike Duffek’s Content Outline

2.     I decided to make an outline suggestion for Mike’s content outline. I went through and described his level of development, and how he could change a few things to make them better.

3.     I made Mike’s outline better by suggesting that he adds an attention grabber into his introduction. In order to do this, I suggested brainstorming some ideas as to how he could come up with one. An attention grabber would help the audience stay engaged, and make them more interested in the publication. This is crucial to anyone engaging in a journal/essay/video. Attention grabbers also set some of the tone for the entire publication (whether they think it will be funny, boring, etc.).

4.     I suggested brainstorming ideas as to how Mike could come up with a good attention grabber. In order to do this, I suggested making a cluster map or a brainstorming map. This can be seen on pages 44-45 on the Student’s Guide. With “my writing process” at the center, Mike can come up with ideas that relate to that topic but will grab the audience’s attention.

5.     One thing that I admired about Mike’s outline is how interesting his outline was. I really enjoyed how he approached the discussion of each project. He truly established ethos (and even some pathos) in his outline by making personal statements.