Feedback+from+peer+review

Peer Review Page
 * **Score** || **Comments** ||
 * **4** || **Your review is readable and most readers might be able to follow your logic and understand. However, an introduction of heading systems to capture the major themes would have completed the organization of this work.** ||
 * **5** || **You correctly cite the various sources as well as adhered to the APA format in writing your reference. You may want to check your APA in-text citation for six or more authors. I think even in the first instance of citing as six or more authors, you don’t write all six names as you did for (**Pope, Barret, Szymanski, Chung, Singaravelu, McLean, & Sanabria, 2004) ||
 * **2** || **Another thing you may want to check is your own perspective on the subject your review is addressing. You were good on reviewing the literature, but I missed your own perspective or evaluation of points / issues addressed. To add your subjective opinion to the subject matter, you may want to consider issues like how easy it would be for counselors to work with these people as well as why are the various career needs of GLBT that you identified not being addressed so far?** ||
 * **5** || **On bloom’s taxonomy, this review will fall under the category of synthesis. Adding your subjective view of the issues discussed will upgrade it to the highest level possible** ||


 * SCORE (evaluator 1) || COMMENTS ||
 * 3 || Lacked heading and breaks in paragraphs. The information transitioned well but it was visually confusing. ||
 * 4 || Adhered to graduate level grammar and mechanics most of the time. ||
 * 4 || APA was mostly followed correctly, ex. This line in the last paragraph should be cited: //Prior to 2000, a scarce amount of research has been done on the GLBT population and career counseling // ||
 * 4. || The section below was somewhat vague and maybe missing a couple of words. Some specific examples of interventions would be helpful, for example, specific book titles: //The counselor could provide information to the individual on strategies about the coming out process, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages they may encounter. Behavioral rehearsals on answering job interview questions could be a beneficial intervention for a homosexual individual concerned about his or her career. ////Educational interventions could consist of reading books dedicated to the formation of sexual identity. In addition, the counselor can help the individual identify support groups, provide him or her with information on the location and size of the GLBT community, and help them utilize the resources available. Therapeutic interventions would begin with a discussion of how influenced the individual is with societal messages in reference to career decisions. A counselor may choose to utilize cognitive techniques such as positive self-talk and reframing as a way to combat lowered self-esteem due to internalized homophobia. // ||
 * 5. || Yes I can see there are many tools that can be used by a counselor to promote a safe nonjudgmental atmosphere as well as suggestions for possible strategies. ||
 * 6. || Application. Source articles are linked to the paper but the paper is not at the Analysis level because the paper is more organized by articles than interconnecting themes. I would suggest dividing the paper into themes with headings. Discuss each theme and present the article that supports the theme. Then transition from one theme to the next. I believe your lit review as is stands is almost there and you would only need to reorganize your information and make minor changes. Your last paragraph discusses the lack of research in this area so the fact that you considered this aspect of your reserch is a characteristic of Evaluation. ||


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 2 || # I found this lit review a bit hard to read as the paragraph spacing was hard to see. I thought it would have been easier to read if there were headings or for example if Case’s stages were laid out to read in a more reader friendly manner. ||
 * 4 || # I thought this review adhered nicely to graduate standards with the variety or words used, sentence length etc. ||
 * 4 || # I mentioned that I would have liked to see headings to make this lit review more readable. ||
 * 4 || # Nothing really jumped out. I think they did a great job! ||
 * 5 || # This group gave a lot of good ideas about interventions such as reading books, practicing positive self-talk and couples counseling. I really liked your section on counselors needing to be sensitive to this population. ||
 * 4 || # I would place this lit review in the synthesis category. I did not really see any evidence of an objective rating system for the source articles. I did feel that this group did not just state their opinions, but had an assessment of their articles. ||

There didn’t seem to be much synthesis in your literature review. For example, you generally dealt with one source at a time, primarily summarizing the material from each author in a linear fashion (primarily: Datti -- Mobley & Stanley – Pope et al – Budge, Tebbe & Howard [in that order]). Did these (or other) researchers find areas of agreement/disagreement? Did they (or other researchers) offer different approaches to the issues you discussed? How do the interventions discussed in the paragraph beginning, “educational interventions…” relate to the stages of coming out discussed earlier. (You definitely suggested the connection (“ For those individuals in a relationship, it may be beneficial to provide couples counseling because the members of the relationship may be at different levels of sexual identity development.”), but you might be able to connect the dots between this article and the previous citation about Datti’s bottleneck hypothesis or Case’s model of identity development. You did __apply__ the information well when you identified possible interventions that a counselor can perform (“ The counselor could provide information to the individual on strategies about the coming out process, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages they may encounter. Behavioral rehearsals on answering job interview questions could be a beneficial intervention for a homosexual individual concerned about his or her career…”) ||
 * Score: || Comments: ||
 * 4 || This literature review made a logical progression through the various topics. It tied together well. Personally, I don’t like passive voice, because I feel like using active voice communicates a message more effectively. You might want to revise this element, though it’s just a suggestion… ||
 * 3 || There are some grammar issues.
 * 1) a. Line 3 in the first paragraph, There (are—ommitted) other areas…
 * 2) b. “Since no laws exists (sic)…” The coming out paragraph
 * 3) c. Awkward wording: “ Therapeutic interventions would begin with a discussion of __how influenced the individual is with__ societal messages in reference to career decisions.” ||
 * 4 || It’s difficult to fully evaluate this element, because wikispaces does not preserve the correct format from word. The citations are documented correctly. ||
 * || I didn’t have trouble reading any section of your paper. It was straightforward and clear. ||
 * || I see how you can use some of the information for your workshop, but wonder if you might need more material. You definitely covered the challenges that folks from the LGBT community face with regard to the workplace, but I wonder if a broader consideration of interventions might be helpful. Certainly, you noted a lack of academic research, which probably limits you in this regard. On a related note, I would recommend incorporating more sources into the literature review (see comments below). ||
 * || I would say that this literature review primarily involved comprehension and application.


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 2 || # I liked the heading stating that it was a literature review for GLBT but I would also add which each letter stands for incase people are unsure. In addition, the layout was hard to read because there were no spaces between the paragraphs or indentation. I felt like it was all blended together. ||
 * 4 || # I thought it was well written. I liked how you had various transitions that helped your paper flow. ||
 * 5 || # As far as I could see, I feel as though you cited everything well. The references were easy to read. ||
 * 4 || # I feel as though you were clear in what you were trying to state; however, I needed to reread some parts because of the way the paper was laid out. ||
 * 5 || # Like you stated about the small amount of research, it was nice to read that you were able to pull out a few relevant themes such as sexual identity, the “degree of outness,” and discrimination.” I enjoyed reading the various interventions that you could use and you definitely will be able to use this information when creating a larger workshop. This information that you stated is vital and people need to aware so they can meet the needs of this population. ||
 * 3 || # I feel as though throughout your paper you had a lot of knowledge and comprehension components according to Bloom’s Taxonomy because of the repeated information you found in sources and the summarization of main points. Additionally, I feel as though you touched on application by referencing main ideas and from there explain different interventions that can be used. Finally, I also feel as though you touched on synthesis by stating the themes you saw with the insufficient research available. ||


 * 3 || While reading, I was having trouble transitioning between paragraphs. Maybe provide some stronger transitions between paragraphs. I also think the last sentence in the last paragraph could be a little softer. I feel like the ending was very abrupt, and could include a sentence that really sums up the research ||
 * 3 || Some of the sentences are very choppy. I think you could combine certain sentences to provide the reader with more “flow” when reading the review. I also think the coming out part of the review could possibly be moved toward the beginning to give the reader a bit of information on the coming out process, which could set the tone for how career development may be affected by the coming out process. ||
 * 5 || Follows APA format (from what I can see) ||
 * || I think you should focus on the flow of the paper. The information presented makes sense; it is just hard to follow because the sentences are choppy and contain no transition to the next point that is being made ||
 * || Yes, the interventions you may be using in your workshop are well presented. ||
 * || I think the lit review is somewhere between the application and the analysis stage. I think you need to focus on how the information can be interrelated. ||

However, I did find the readability of your review a bit difficult. It seemed especially jumpy and choppy – mostly in the beginning. There is a broader developed theme that is evident – good job. ||
 * || score || comments ||
 * 1. || 3 || I would imagine there was something to the copy and paste function when transferring your review into the wiki since there seems to be no paragraph separation etc. which unfortunately makes the review a bit difficult to read.
 * 2. || 4 || I felt that you adhered to graduate level writing standards. I remember a couple spots (I apologize I should have highlighted them) where the sentence mechanics needed to be improved, but overall it is well done. ||
 * 3. || 5 || Nice job on following APA format ||
 * 4. ||  || The sections in which you discuss “Case’s model of identity development” and the “coming out process” I found very difficult to follow. Is there a better way to structure those paragraphs? Otherwise, I found most everything else understandable. ||
 * 5. ||  || I’m not sure I have a clear idea of what your goals may be or that of your objectives – it felt that you were describing the stages of a GLBT individual more than applying it to career development ||
 * 6. ||  || I believe you have developed your lit review well and would give it a Granello level of analysis due to the fact that I believe there needs improvement in the synthesis area to create a better flow and presentation of the author’s viewpoint. ||


 * **Scores** || **Comments** ||
 * 4 || I thought this literature review was excellent. All of your information flowed from paragraph to paragraph and was easy to follow and understand. You had a very good introduction to open your topic up to the audience and a great conclusion to summarize your findings. It was clear to me what your theme was and the main ideas you might focus on in your workshop. I am not sure if headings are needed but they could possibly help to break up the different sections of your paper (needs of the GLBT population, Research, and Interventions) ||
 * 4 || Again I thought the level of writing was excellent. It demonstrated use of proper grammar, spelling and sentence mechanics. I also felt that even though it was easy to read there was a level of sophistication to how things were written. I think if you continue to self revise your literature review you can make it even better. ||
 * 4 || Your APA formatting and style was well done. I highlighted a few small mistakes in your reference section. The journal title and the volume number, but not the issue number, need to be italicized. I highlighted in red the ones you should check. Besides looking out for simple mistakes like that everything looked great to me. ||
 * || 4. Like I said before, I found your paper very easy to read and follow. There is one section I highlighted in pink that I would have liked explained better. It seemed to be worthwhile information, so if you have a way to expand on the ways to make an environment sensitive and accepting I think that would be helpful. Otherwise I understood everything that was trying to be conveyed. ||
 * || 5. I was definitely able to gain insight into how this information could be used in a larger workshop format. There were clear interventions that could be helpful to the GLBT community. One suggestion would be to include some goals that a workshop like this may want to accomplish. Once clear goals and objectives are formulated I believe a great workshop could come from this literature review. ||
 * || 6. In my opinion this literature review is around the synthesis level. There is a clear integration of ideas from different articles and those ideas present a theme for the paper. In order to reach the evaluation level there needs to be some more talk about the strengths and limitations of your research. I did think the conclusion did a good job to mention that more research needs to be done though. Just expand of the exact limitations and strengths. ||


 * Score(Evaluator 2) || Comments ||
 * 4 || # I found this paper to be quite readable and easy to follow. One thing I thought that would have helped the paper would have the inclusion of a heading system. I found the brief summary of the upcoming topic at the end of the introduction to be very useful and informative as to what topics would be discussed in the paper. ||
 * 5 || # I did not find any grammatical errors in this paper. The bulk of the writing was up to a level that I would consider as being consistent with graduate level writing / evaluation. ||
 * 4 || # As previously mentioned, I think that this paper would have greatly benefited from having a heading system. One area in particular is when the paper shift from sexual identity development and de facto and de jure discrimination to counseling implications. I had to stop and began rereading this section because I was lost as to how the latter section resulted from the former. A clear APA style heading divide could have fixed that issue. ||
 * || # //Refer to the box directly above// ||
 * || # I had several ideas of possible workshops that could result from the information presenting in this literature review. One idea would be to present groups with a scenario that contain several different types and levels of gender / sexual discrimination and then have the groups try to identify as many as possible and how those barriers might be affecting people in the GLBT population. ||
 * || # I would put this literature review at the analysis stage of the taxonomy. There is a lot of relevant information presented and the group points out the need for further research to be done with this population. The only problem I saw is that a lot of the issues presented in this literature review simply highlight the issues but there is a general lack of critical evaluation by the writers. ||


 * Scores || Comments ||
 * 4 || The paragraphs are well organized, but the paper could still benefit from headings and smoother transitions. It needs to be more visually broken up. ||
 * 4.5 || Aside from the tense error already pointed out, sentence structure and grammar looks good. ||
 * 5 || Citations appear correct and no quotes were used. ||
 * || 4. I did not read anything that did not make sense. ||
 * || 5. I appreciated that you wrote about specific interventions that could be used in the workshop. ||
 * || 6. This review seems to be at the analysis stage. Themes should be more emphasized. I also thought more input was needed from the author’s perspective, rather than predominately article summary. ||


 * Score || comments ||
 * 2 || I didn’t always follow your transitions. There were no headings, which also made the task of following difficult. I feel like the organizational flow needs to be re-worked. ||
 * 3 || There were a couple of places that could use some revision as far as grammar and sentence mechanics are concerned. ||
 * 3 || As far as I could tell, APA standards were adhered to for the most part. Make sure the second line of your references is indented. Use of paraphrasing and citations was good. No headings were used. ||
 * || 4. The section about the “bottleneck hypothesis” was confusing to me. There was another section that someone else already highlighted as well. ||
 * || 5. I am not exactly sure what information might be presented in the workshop. Overall, I can see how GLBT clients may have a lot of other decisions to make and self-awareness to come to before being able to make a cognizant career choice. ||
 * || 6. I would put your review at the Synthesis level if you were to add in some headings and add some further explication to the sources you have cited. ||


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 4.5 || This lit review provided very background information about the difficulties that people in the GLBT community face. I found the information to be easy to read. I believe that headings and subheadings would make it much easier to follow and it would help with transitioning from one topic to another. ||
 * 5 || I think this is very well written. Grammar, spelling, and syntax were good overall. ||
 * 4.5 || Overall, APA looks ok. ||
 * 5 || I found this writing to be very easy to read. I did not have to reread any paragraphs. ||
 * 4 || Based on the information in this review, it is not completely clear what kind of interventions would be appropriate for a workshop. Some of the things that were mentioned, such as counseling, shadowing, and interviewing would be great for individualized career counseling. I could see how there could possibly be some reading materials available for people who attend. ||
 * 4.5 || This lit review looks like it may be at the synthesis level. IF you wished to take it to the evaluation level you could present both sides of the argument of whether it is necessary to provide this population with specialized career counseling interventions or not. You could also critique the articles by mentioning their strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. ||

||
 * Score ||  Comments
 * 4 || I thought that the paper was structured and laid out well. Also, It also flowed very easily and provided a nice summary of some of the interventions that a counselor could use when working with a GLBT individual. ||
 * 4 || I did not personally find any grammatical or spelling errors. I could be missing things, since this is the third one that I read. ||
 * 4 || It does seem to follow appropriate ADA guidelines. I would just check some of your spacing and indentations in some areas. It may be simply as a result of pasting it into the wiki. ||
 * 4. || As I mentioned above, it was very easy for me to read. I did not have a hard time at all comprehending any of the material that was presented. In comparison to a few of the other papers, I found this one to be the easiest to read, which is a good thing. ||
 * 5. || It seems pretty clear to me that you are going to focus on educating them on the different interventions and education pieces that they could use to make things easier for them to transition into the workforce, while also giving them the tools and knowledge to do so. ||
 * 6. || I put you in the application/analysis stage within Bloom’s Taxonomy ||