Skip to main content

Table 3 The analytical scheme for classifying peer comments

From: Assessing peer review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-mediated modes on students’ academic writing development

Part A (peer review classification) (8)
Area Global Local
Nature Revision-oriented Non-revision-oriented Revision-oriented Non-revision-oriented
Type
Evaluation You did not compare and contrast the information. I like your summary paragraph! There is no paraphrasing of the title in the introduction. The sentences are mostly correct and interesting!
Clarification What is the general trend in your overview paragraph? (No example for this category) What do you mean with “that period of time” in the second body paragraph? (No example for this category)
Suggestion You can divide the content into two paragraphs. Your overview paragraph should stay as it is. It’s better to use past tens bcz it is for 2014. You should only use the present tense for this chart. You did it Well!
Alteration Change your introduction into X. (No example for this category) Change “propotion” to “proportion.” (No example for this category)
Part B (IELTS assessment criteria) (4)
Task achievement You can highlight the points of highest and lowest proportion to give idea about the whole trend (e.g., “There is no paraphrasing of the title in the introduction”).
Coherence and cohesion You can link each process with a few connectors, such as, first, second, next… (e.g., “The sentences in paragraph two are not linked properly”).
Lexical resources You can also use more vocabulary rather than increase and decrease. (e.g., “More vocabulary can be used instead of rented and owned”).
Grammatical range and accuracy Do not put (The) before name of countries (e.g., “Start the new sentences with capital letter”).