Peer Feedforward
As part of the publication rough draft process, my work was assessed by my core peer group using a collaboratively designed rubric. Together, we developed and justified the assessment criteria to ensure alignment with the expectations of the assignment. The rubric reflects multiple dimensions of quality, including clarity of topic, alignment with publication and audience, structure and organization, use of evidence, and overall impact.
The assignment was scored on a 50-point scale, with the understanding that this was a work in progress rather than a finished product. Therefore, the purpose of the peer review was not to assign a “perfect” grade, but to provide feedforward—constructive suggestions for improvement that would guide revisions and strengthen the final submission.
Each member of my peer group provided both a numerical score and specific comments. These comments were future-oriented and actionable, highlighting strengths while also identifying areas for refinement. For example, peers encouraged me to:
-
sharpen my argument to ensure it is more explicitly evidence-driven,
-
clarify how my strategies connect to a broader educational audience, and
-
add a more synthesized conclusion to highlight future implications.
Based on this feedback, my peers gave me a collaborative grade of 92. In response, I have already begun making targeted revisions. Specifically, I updated my publication outline so that it better aligns with my rough draft, ensuring that the structure, argument, and supporting evidence are cohesive and clearly connected.
This process not only gave me valuable insights into my own draft, but also strengthened my ability to evaluate scholarly writing and apply those same standards to my revisions. By engaging in this cycle of feedback and reflection, I was able to view my draft as part of a developmental process—one that values growth, collaboration, and continuous improvement over perfection.