Peer+Feedback

score 3 In the application section, there needed to be a little more exploration into Super’s theory. There is some basic information but really did not seem to explain what you were attempting to explain. The Future Consideration section was nicely done!! 4 There were some grammar issues. APA desires to have the past tense, so there were times when it would say “aspire”, instead of “aspired”. Overall, things were good, but just be care with the way that you word some sentences. 3 It could use some brushing up with the past tense. In the Unique needs section, you are missing the “as cited in” for your sentence when you talk about the different theorists.

I would be very careful, especially in the elementary school years, to tell parents that they should be placing a high priority in career development and that it should be taking a lot of their time, that is a little iffy. A lot of the information provided was vague, but considering the word limit, it is difficult to get into a lot of detail. However, I would be concerned that you might not have a lot of information for a day long workshop. Personally, I feel that in elementary school that I am not sure I want my child to be spending ample time on career development, but I guess that is just me.

1. 4: Despite being extremely difficult to physically read off of this giant computer screen, I thought your literature had a good flow. The headings were appropriate, and the information seemed pertinent to the areas of focus.  2. 2: As far as grammar and spelling, there were several glaringly obvious errors. Perhaps it’s just a facet in your paper’s synthesis, but it definitely needs a major revision.  3. 5: You did an excellent job overall with your in text citations, as well as your use of the APA standards.  4. I’d say the entire thing needs to be fine-tuned. I think things will come together much more cohesively once the necessary revisions are made.  5. Like I said, your information was very good, and proved to be pertinent to your target group. I can clearly see how a workshop may be generated from your literature review. I envision it geared toward elementary school faculty and administration, in that it seems to stress the need for these changes more than it educates the target group specifically. This seems like it could be a very fun and hands-on workshop, which involves a lot of interaction and role-play between the participants.

the life of…”. ||
 * Score || Comments ||
 * 4 || The headings flowed nicely and seem to hit very important parts of the potential workshop. Most of the paper flows together pretty nicely through the different areas. ||
 * 3 || There were a lot of misspellings and had some sentences that seemed too wordy. Overall the paper was written well and got to the point of the literature with good examples ||
 * 5 || Citing was up to apa standards and there was a good balance of paraphrasing and quotes. ||
 * || Some of the needs of the population was difficult to read and thus I had to reread a few times. At times I got lost within a sentence because there seemed to have too many words to get to the point of what was eventually going to be said. ||
 * || I thought the information provided in this literature review was insightful to the population. I can see the importance of reaching children at young ages with the topic of career development. I also thought it was useful to cite activities to play such as “Day in
 * || I could see some of blooms taxonomy within this review. The stages of application because the group learned new information and put it to use. Comprehension because the group exhibited the ability to understand the literature. ||

“Child” should be “children” to match “themselves” bc of plurality…”child” and “themselves” are not parallel…

“where in which” is awkward…I would suggest using “during” instead of where. Technically, “where” pertains more to location; “during” refers more to time.

Last citation of 2nd paragraph needs a year

First sentence of 3rd full paragraph…I think the last part of the sentence, “go through their understanding of career development” makes the sentence more confusing. I would end with “experience” instead of “go through” to avoid ending the sentence with a preposition.

“Auger, Blackhurst, and Wahl refer to this…” not easily understandable what “this” refers to…I understood it but only after reading it a couple of times…

“what they aspire to be and to what they expect to be” changing “and” to “compared” clarifies and reiterates your point.

“boys often identified with sex-typed…older children identified more prestigious careers” Should this be 2 separate sentences? I was expecting the second part of the sentence to relate to boys, girls, or sex-typing…also, I think it is somewhat confusing bc of using “identified with” and “indentified” when they mean different things…I don’t know if you mean to include “with”…”identify with” means more relate to and “identify” means more to select…

in the last sentence of the third paragraph, need a comma after “in elementary school” before and because both could be independent sentences. I think making these two thoughts into 2 separate sentences might emphasize your point regarding the importance of taking advantage of this point in development.

1. (3) excellent job of connecting the research to the broader point, nice progression through the paper (logical topics to cover), overall grammar is ok but needs some minor work, some sentences could be clearer, some paragraphs are paltry (intro, first paragraph of application of theory to targets group (is last sentence relevant to the purpose of that paragraph? Can u develop a better transition?), conclusion. Also, using “it” and “this” is fine, but more refined writing usually limits use of “it” and “this” since they are indefinite pronouns that can cause confusion because they do not directly identifying to which concept “it” or “this” is referring. 2. (3) see above 3. (4) I didn’t get to finish closely reading the paper, but the first part seemed to comply with apa. 4. see above notes 5. (5) Very nice! 6. I would say the paper falls between the synthesis and evaluation taxonomies.

1. 4 2. 4 Subject-verb DISagreement in 3rd parag of Evidence-based interventions. Typo in the first parag of Application section (article title). 3. 5 Looks good. 4. It all made sense... 5. So what, exactly, might the workshop involve? Hmm… Creative activities focused on career interests? Experiential activities analogous to respective careers/vocations? Having some career areas represented via warm bodies for Q&A? 6. Strong in application. Analysis evident.

Feedback: **1. Score: 5.** This article was easy to read, flowed well, and had clear appropriate headings. Fantastic and interesting, too!

**2. Score: 3.5** For the most part, the grammar was ok, but I found many instances where words were missing the “s” at the end or were slightly misspelled, and this made it difficult to read. • Example : There were no significant different between first graders, third graders and fifth graders.

**3. Score: 4.** Overall, the APA format was good. In some cases, the date was missing from the in-text citation (not attached to the authors’ names) or a page number was missing with a small quote. Headings were great!

**4.** The section entitled “Application of Theories to Target Group” was somewhat difficult to read. Because there were many theorists listed, it was confusing and did not flow well. I think the concepts discussed are fine, but with a few revisions, it could be less confusing.

**5.** I can definitely see how the group will use this information in their workshop, and I am excited to see how it will be done. I hope we use the “What’s My Line” activity.

**6.** Analysis bordering on Synthesis. It is detailed, in-depth, and well-presented. Correction of some grammatical and APA errors will help the group approach synthesis.


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 2 || I had trouble following your transition between Super’s theory and the specific developmental needs of your population. I think the connection between best practices and the needs of your population was much stronger. ||
 * 3 || In the second sentence in the section titled “Unique Needs of the Population”, you used the word “empirical” where I think you meant “ephemeral”. Watch your compound sentences; many did not contain a comma. Overall, I think the writing was very tight. ||
 * 4 || You did a nice job with this section. In the third sentence underneath the heading “Best Practices”, you should paraphrase this quote instead of quoting it. Also, you do not need to include the year of the citation if you have already referenced the full in-text citation earlier in the paragraph. ||