Peer+Feedback

5 The review was very easy. I thought the transitions from topic to topic were very smooth. There was never a time where I thought that the writing or transitions seemed choppy. 4 There were a few grammatical errors in this early in this document. 5 All the citations looked on point and detailed correctly. I thought there was a lot of citations for a literature review though. I had to reread the interventions, it seemed as though there was a lot of citations bundled up which made it difficult. I would expect to see programs where students are given information on ways to access information for their future career. I thought the group had very good analysis and a strong understanding of what they were talking about. However, there are a lot of citations but I am still wondering what they all mean.
 * 3 || Your language, for the most part, was direct and easy to understand. I had some trouble with the 2nd paragraph of the Development section. You spoke of Super in the first paragraph, then left super for a different inventory, and it was unclear if the inventory was Super’s or the authors’, and then you returned to Super. ||
 * 3 || Past tense is needed. I found some punctuation errors, and was confused by the use of --- in the first paragraph, when a comma would suffice. ||
 * 4 || Citations were good. I was concerned when I saw that you used a study from 1976. Was it a landmark study that changed the field in some way? ||
 * || The only part I had to reread was the 2nd paragraph in the Development section, which I commented on above. ||
 * || I would expect the goals and objectives of the workshop to include a measure of self-efficacy, something relating to parental influence and involvement, and perhaps inclusion of parents in the workshop. ||
 * || From the way you used the information in the articles to support your points and information, I think you are at least in the Application, if not Analysis stage on Bloom’s Taxonomy. At first it seemed like the review was citing article by article, but later it began to integrate different articles to make one clear argument. ||

Question Score Comments 1 5 Overall I found the literature review to be very good in this area. Good job with transitions, headings, and connecting the points presented 2 4 Once again I think the overall product was good. I did notice one grammatical error. In the section headed Needs of High School Students, in the first paragraph, the sentence about the article by Trust et al., I think the word you needed was “studied” and not “study.” 3 4 I noticed a few grammatical errors. First, in the reference section I believe that the volume number for periodicals should be in italics. Check the APA Manual on that. Also, when you met=ntion the Jeffrey et al study in the text you should not use &, use “and.” The symbol & should only be used in the reference section. 4 4 I struggled with two sentences. First, at the beginning of Interventions. It reads, “Although developmently…” I kept struggling with this sentence. The second troublesome sentence was also in Interventions, this time in the second paragraph. The sentence that reads, “It would furthermore….” Furthermore was in an odd spot. 5 5 I think overall this group found relevant information for their topic. 6 4 I think that the Bloom Taxonomy was in the analysis stage -- very good, but not totally synthesized.

4 Readability was good. Transitions were good and the layout of the literature review made sense. I liked the way you clearly presented the objectives of the literature review in the second paragraph.

5 I did not find any spelling errors or grammatical mistakes. I think that you did a nice job conveying your points.

3 APA style appears to be a little rusty. Not sure that you needed to use page numbers in all of your citations under interventions. This only occurred in this section, so whoever wrote that section might want to brush up on appropriate APA style. Reference section looks good.


 * I think that in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy, you are somewhere in the middle stages. You do a nice job conveying the research, but I am not sure that it is synthesized.**

I would have liked to hear more about the ways that parents could get involved since this is mentioned as extremely important. Perhaps this could be one of the objectives in the workshop.


 * Also, for the workshop, I think it would be helpful to include some specific examples or scales that can be used with high school students.


 * Score || Comments ||
 * 5 || Great introduction to gain the interest of the reader. Good summary of what will be explored in the literature review. Good summarized conclusion. ||
 * 4 || Nice transitions between sections. Provides a good introductory sentence and lead into the section. ||
 * 3 || The definition of career maturity includes the individual’s ability and readiness to make appropriate career choices. -- Donald Super indicated that key influences of career maturity, in addition to age and grade, were psychosocial forces. -- Shouldn’t you cite this? ||
 * 3 || Nice summary of studies in the development section. Although a short conclusion of the section would have been helpful for the reader. ||
 * 3 || APA format - page numbers aren’t necessary unless direct quotes? ||
 * 3 || APA format - When discussing an article (such as Trusty, 1996), citing the reference may be needed besides intro sentence (check on this) ||
 * 3 || Ideas for interventions are valid. How can these interventions be implemented specifically for something such as a workshop? ||
 * 5 || Overall, nice detail and supporting research without being too wordy. Used well focused points. ||

Score Comments 4 I thought that the literature review transitioned very well. Everything was well -organized and broken down into separate components. I enjoy the short and sweet component to your lit review. It was very right to the point. 4 You guys did a good job on making something that was probably complex into something very easy to read and understand. Though there is some grammar issues as far as, comma usage. Everything is well said and spelling is correct. It also seems like you guys know what you are talking about and that is very important. 5 It seems to me that your APA is great. There are the correct usage of citations and paraphrasing and not quoting. There is also a great reference list. I think that you are in the Analysis level in blooms taxonomy. Everything was well detailed and descriptive. You definitely know what you are talking about and it shows in your lit review. Even though it is short, you have made it very comprehensive and detailed at the same time. It seems to me that you have a great understanding of certain themes present at the high school level. The high school level of career development process is very interesting to me. I look forward to seeing what goals and objectives you have in store for the average high school student. There are many things going on at the high school level and I hope that you touch base on the most important things like, transitioning, career indecision, and career exploration.

Aid should be aide

“Next, the career development needs of this population will be analyzed.” Clearer and less wordy (note: both the current sentence and my suggested sentence are both in passive voice)

Nice job of “setting up” the paper so the reader knows what to expect ☺

Good job of maintaining parallelism with plurality!

“For some, choosing an occupation and finding a first full-time job will be major challenges” maybe change “will” to “are”

“For others, choosing and selecting a particular course of study will constitute the major decision-making goals at this stage (Creed & Patton, 2003).” Maybe change “will constitute” to “constitutes”

I do not know what the apa format is for presenting (is the right word seriation?) for in text (im referring to where you list items with numbers). If you haven’t looked this up, you might want to…

Instead of using paranthesis, I would use a comma and “such as…,” Generally, I think with more refined writing it’s better to avoid parenthesis and incorporate the info into the body of the sentence/text… I know text books and research articles use parenthesis frequently tho…

Don’t use “yet”

I think you have a solid conclusion.

1. (4) Readable…WAY better than the other paper I read. Appropriate for grad school. 2. (4) generally good. Some sentences could be worded or structured more simply, but I do not think the current “style” is a problem. Restructuring some sentences could make reading somewhat easier and clarify communication. 3. (4) apa looks decent…didn’t pay much attention to it, but nothing horrific stood out to me. Some use of passive voice… 4. I did not get to finish reading the document…anything that I thought was noteworthy from the part I did read I mentioned above 5. (4) definitely a good idea of what a workshop would need to accomplish…but not specifics (which we weren’t necessarily supposed to have in the paper anyways so I think ur good) 6. I would say between synthesis and evaluation

Very NICE job guys!!!! I do really like the logical organization of your paper and the conclusion.