To: Terry Chou
From: Yiyu Li
Date: February 28, 2023
Peer review: Formal Report Proposal for Addressing the Issue of Academic Misconduct in CPSC 110
First Impression: The article provides a well-structured and well-written overview of the issue of academic misconduct in CPSC 110 at UBC. The author clearly states the problem and proposed solution, and the scope of the research is also clearly defined. The author’s qualifications are also impressive, which lends credibility to the proposed solution. The grammar and typos are minimal, and the writing style is engaging and informative.
Introduction: The introduction provides a clear overview of the course, its importance, and the significance of addressing academic misconduct. The introduction is concise yet informative and provides the reader with a good understanding of the context and scope of the problem.
Statement of the Problem: The problem is clearly defined, and the author provides statistics to support the severity of the issue. The author identifies the most common forms of academic misconduct, which is helpful in understanding the scope of the problem.
Proposed Solution: The proposed solution is well thought out and addresses the key areas that need improvement. The author provides specific recommendations and strategies, and the solutions are feasible and realistic. However, the author could have provided more detail on how to effectively implement the proposed solution.
Scope: The scope of the research is clearly defined, and the author identifies specific areas of inquiry. The areas of inquiry are relevant and specific to the problem, and the author provides a good framework for the research.
Method: The methods proposed are appropriate, and the author identifies the primary and secondary data sources. The author also acknowledges the limitations of the research, which adds to the credibility of the proposed research.
Qualifications: The author’s qualifications are impressive and relevant to the topic. The author’s experience as a TA provides valuable insight into the issue of academic misconduct and makes the proposed solution more credible.
Conclusions: The conclusions drawn by the author are logical and relevant. The author identifies the importance of addressing academic misconduct and the potential impact on the learning experience. The author’s proposed solution is feasible and relevant to the problem identified.
Grammar and Typos: The article is well written, and the grammar and typos are minimal. However, there are a few instances where the wording could be improved for clarity.
- A comma after “UBC” in the introduction could be added.
- A period at the end of the statement of problem section could be added.
- “during lectures” could be changed to “during the course” in the statement of problem section.
- A comma after “consequences of academic misconduct” in the proposed solution section could be added.
- The first letter of each bullet point in the scope section could be capitalized.
- “Tas” could be changed to “TAs” throughout the methods section.
- A comma after “context for the issue of academic misconduct” in the methods section could be added.
- “coupled with my knowledge of coding and programming concepts” to “in addition to my knowledge of coding and programming concepts” in the qualifications section could be change
- A comma after “addressing academic misconduct in CPSC 110” in the conclusion section could be added.
Concluding Comments: Overall, the article is informative, well written, and provides valuable insight into the issue of academic misconduct in CPSC 110 at UBC. The proposed solution is feasible and relevant, and the author’s qualifications lend credibility to the proposed research.
Leave a Reply