Peer Review for Formal Report Draft
To: Catherine Yu, Student ENGL 301 Technical Writing UBC
From: Darius Zhang, Student ENGL 301 Technical Writing UBC
Date: November 19, 2021
Subject: Review of Formal Report Draft
Thank you for your submission of a well-composed draft detailing the potential issues around teaching evaluation. This formal report clearly illustrates the need for a midterm teaching evaluation, the proposed solution to the stated problem is justified. Please see the review of the formal report draft with some suggestions for improvement.
First Impression:
This is a clear formal report draft that demonstrates critical thinking towards the proposed issues. The report communicates to its intended audience using a professional tone and appropriate level of accessibility. The report is well organized and contains all the necessary components in a formal report draft. Here are some suggestions that could be used to improve your formal report.
Introduction:
The introduction provides sufficient background information for the reader, and it is organized by subheadings. Each subheading is of appropriate length, and every concluding sentence in one paragraph is connected to the topic sentence of the next paragraph. It shows that the writer has strong writing skills. Overall, the introduction is very nicely written and pleasant to read.
Data Section:
The data section explains to the reader what are the primary sources and secondary sources. The literature review is nicely done, with some errors in the in-text citation format. For example, under the subheading, a. “Student Evaluations of teaching”, the first in-text citation: (Kelly 4) is missing a comma, if the report is using the MLA citation style.
- One suggestion for this section is to pay attention to small details, the content of the data section is very nicely written.
- It could be better if the data section could include a link to the survey so that the readers can know all the questions outlined in the survey.
- The literature review can be further expanded, for example, any research that could support the notion that mid-term evaluation helps both the students and the teacher to monitor their learning & teaching experiences.
- To be consistent with maintaining a YOU attitude, the use of pronouns in the data section could be minimized, for example, use ‘the respondents’ instead of ‘they’.
Proposed solution:
The proposed solution which comes after the data and analysis part should have its own section. In this way, the data section would not seem too long. Below are some suggestions:
- It could be better if the proposed solution part can add a description of the potential limitation to the solution. For example, would it affect students’ grades if the teacher receive too much bad evaluation?
- The proposed solution could be even more persuasive with an examination of its limitations, and how that limitation would be resolved (eg. Any alternatives?)
Conclusion
The conclusion is further divided into two parts, a summary of the results and a recommendation. It is nicely written and reminds the reader again of the logic of having a midterm evaluation. It could be better to provide an explanation of why the alternative is not as feasible as the first solution.
Grammar
In general, the draft is mostly grammar mistake-free. Below are some suggestions for the proofread:
- Pay attention to the plural/singular marker
- Passive voice is mostly seen in the introduction section
- Article error: the/a/an
Concluding comments:
Overall, the draft report is very detailed and beautifully written, I can really see your effort in this report, with small edits and more attention to detail, I believe your final report is going to be very impressive. Keep up the good work! If you have any questions, please feel free to email me.
Best,
Darius
Enclosed. Catherine Yu’s Formal Report Draft.