Week 6 of seminar class was about peer to peer review, where we were divided in pairs of 2 with the other section, like 2 people were paired with each from section c and d.
We were asked to read and review each other’s work and grade it according to some criteria’s
Which were:
- Clarity
- Relevance
- Imagination
- Basic grammar
All of these in total out of 10 marks.
Well I had written 2 full stories and had started with the 3 one, which Rishika singh from section D had to review, and I had to review hers.
She had also written 2 stories, I read through her story and I liked the way she had imagined her story to be and the way she had put it down on paper I could imagine her city while I was reading her story.
The only thing I felt that had to be done in order to improvise was, as all 6 stories were going to be read together which is why all 6 stories had to have some continuity and while reading the story the reader should sense the continuity , but in her stories, the sense of continuity was missing, I read both her stories as 2 different cities which had different identities and were not connected in any ways.
This was the input that I gave her, and I graded her 8/10 and informed her of a few grammatical mistakes she had made.
The review I got for my stories was that both my stories had a lot of repetition of the statement ‘ my dream city or ,my dream city of chocolate, or my dream city of colour’s in every paragraph, which gave a sense of excess repetition which she advised me to change and I completely felt it justified and she graded me 9/10.
story 1=chocolate confectionary
chroma
alluring cosmetics
peer grading by rishika singh section d
Sanjana blogs 