="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 512 512">

11

11.1 – Become a Disagreeable Giver

Humans are very good at assessing and evaluating the work of others. At the same time it is a common phenomenon that it is difficult to accurately evaluate your own work. In an 6SA exercise, you analyze a case and you experience the challenge of crafting a convincing argument, because you do it yourself. It means that when it comes to writing reviews, there is no-one who is more ready to give an assessment than you. Your assessment, your feedback and your advice is most valuable to your peers if you are a “disagreeable giver”. Disagreeable givers are people who are disagreeable and different from yourself; they can be the people who will give you the most useful feedback, provided they care about your interests (which should be the case, as your are all enrolled in the same course). Disagreeable givers will tell it like it is, while maintaining a different perspective. Try to be a disagreeable giver. And expect disagreeable givers providing you constructive feedback.

 

11.2 – Peer Assessment and Grading

Once you have submitted your 6SA, you will review 6SA written by fellow students who have dealt with the same case. It’s a double-blind peer review, meaning that an author does not know the identity of the reviewer, and the reviewer does not know the identity of the author. This ensures that only the quality of the argument is relevant.

In the following, we present the grading criteria. Each sentence is evaluated first against a formal criterion and then against a quality criterion. Award the first point when a sentence fulfills its formal function in the argument, as specified in the first criterion. If fulfilled, you can award a second point for the quality with which the sentence performs this function, as specified in the second criterion. Combine each score with a brief comment in which you explain your decision in a friendly and constructive way.

Before you start scoring a sentence, check whether it fulfills the precondition. First, check that the word limit is respected. Second, if the language is not perfect, try to understand what the writer is trying to say as best as you can. If something is vague, write in your comments what you think the sentence is trying to say and proceed with scoring. If the sentence is incomprehensible, invoke the precondition, assign zero points, and explain why you cannot comprehend the sentence.

 

Precondition Sentence is 20 words or less and clearly comprehensible*. If this precondition is not fulfilled, the sentence scores zero points.
#1 Introduction
  1. The introduction clearly states the topic of the argument.
    Can you answer: What is the argument about?
  2. The introduction attracts the reader’s attention in the context of the case.
    Can you answer, assuming the role of the recipient in the case: Why should I read this?
#2
Position
  1. The position fits the argument’s introduction (#1)
    Is this a position that applies to the decision situation established in the introduction? (#1)
  2. The position explicitly identifies the actors and objects in the context of the case.
    Is it clear who is supposed to do what?
#3
Reason
  1. The reason explains why the position (#2) is a good choice.
    Do you understand why someone might take this position?
  2. The reason is plausible in the context of the case.
    Do you accept this reason? If not, why not?
#4
Challenge
  1. The challenge articulates one point of criticism concerning the reason (#3).
    Does the anticipated criticism really apply to the supportive reason?
  2. The challenge identifies a central weakness of the reason that is plausible in the context of the case.
    Do you accept this as a central point of criticism? If not, which other, more important challenge would you suggest?
#5
Rebuttal
  1. The rebuttal states a response that refutes or qualifies the challenge (#4).
    Does the rebuttal apply to the challenge?
  2. The rebuttal is plausible in the context of the case.
    Do you accept the rebuttal as sufficient to dismiss the criticism (#4)? If not, why not?
#6
Conclusion
  1. Summarizes the argument on the basis of previously presented information (#1–#5).
    Does the conclusion avoid introducing new arguments or information?
  2. The conclusion reinforces the position and emphasizes its relevance in the context of the case.
    Do you feel that the conclusion motivates you to follow the author’s advice?

 

11.3 – Additional Guidelines for Grading 6SAs

  • Each sentence is graded on its own. Mistakes or shortcomings in one sentence should not affect the grading of another sentence. For instance, if you do not accept the reason (#3), a well-written conclusion (#6) would still be awarded full marks, even if it reiterates that reason.
  • The quality criterion (i.e. the second criterion) for the reason, the challenge, and the rebuttal requires those statements to be plausible in the context of the case. As a reviewer, you must judge whether a statement is plausible in the context of the case, i.e., whether you find it convincing when assuming the role of the recipient in the case. If a statement does not convince you, you need to explain why. A typical problem is that a statement is not based on a source that you accept as reliable. Acceptable sources are the case description, lecture material and readings, and other reputable and relevant publications.
  • Note that the challenge (#4) must aim at the reason (#3), not at the position (#2). This strengthens the overall argument, because it forces the writer to explain why they support the position they chose rather than explaining why they disapprove of an alternative position.

 

11.4 – Finding your Authentic Voice as a Reviewer

You are required to provide a comment for each sentence that explains your assessment. It is very important that these reviews are written constructively and in a polite tone. Especially when the review is anonymous, negative feedback quickly feels very harsh. At the same time, it is important that you write with your authentic voice and that the assessments are truthful. No one benefits from feedback that glosses over the problems. If you are using the peergrade software, there are ways for writers to comment on the politeness and constructiveness of the feedback they get. But apart from that, giving good feedback is a valuable skill. Explaining why an argument is or isn’t good is the essence of critical thinking, so it’s worth practicing.

Being critical whilst remaining sensitive to your fellow student who wrote the 6SA isn’t easy. Your comments should be carefully constructed so that the author fully understands what actions he or she needs to take to improve the argument. For example, generalized or vague statements should be avoided along with any negative comments which aren’t relevant or constructive. Give advice and suggest improvements.

 

Provide detailed comments to each sentence.

  • Use the comment to the author as an opportunity to seek clarification on any unclear points and for further elaboration.
  • Make suggestions as to how the author can improve clarity, conciseness, and the overall quality of a sentence.
  • It is not your job to edit the paper for English, but it is helpful if you correct the English where the technical  meaning  is unclear.

 

Provide suggestions and advice in the section for general comments at the bottom of the review.

  • You may disagree with the opinions presented in the 6SA, but you should allow them to stand, provided they are consistent with the case   context.
  • Remember that authors will welcome positive feedback as well as constructive criticism from you.

 

As a rule of thumb, aim to spend about 20 minutes on each review that you write.

A feature of the peergrade platform where 6SA are submitted, allocated, and reviewed, is that you are able to evaluate and interact with the feedback you get. You get to say if the feedback was constructive and helpful, or if you have an issue with it. This ensures that you are assessed fairly while it also gives you an incentive for writing proper feedback.

 

Example

Review Number Review
 1 Overall a great text. One could argue that the fourth sentence doesn’t seem to convey a real problem or challenge but I think it does in a way.
 2 #1 check English: “the” sustainable business team
#2 here you do not really state a strong and clear position; it is more like an additional part of the Intro.
#3 check English: only purchasing form PT smart was suspended; also #2 lacks a position, here the supportive nature of #3 is not fully clear.
#4 this is not really a challenge, or at least in this context not a problem related to #2 and #3.
#5 I do not think this is a rebuttal, as this does not address the challenge described in #4.
#6 the conclusion seems a bit out of the context, i.e. it does not directly follow from the argument.
Overall there are minor grammatical issues, and the 6 sentences do not fully convey just 1 argument coherently.
 3 Very well done! Deforastating is a word which doesn’t exist
 4 How does an LCA help to “avoid having one of our suppliers do wrong to our high sustainability standards commitment”? Sentence #2 and #3 are not coherent.
Also the rebuttal in #5 does not really answer the stated problem in #4
#6 Helps a lot getting across your point but it is longer than 20 words.
 5 To #1: The theme of the text is stated (rainforest deforestation) but the topic of what Wilmar has done is not mentioned at all. Also, I think it doesn’t really give any motivation to the reader to read on since it’s kind of an attack, without stating the background information.
To #2: OK, we don’t support sustainable palm-oil sources but what is your position? No statement is made about what you suggest on doing. The grammar is kind of unclear. When you say “at the moment we don’t’, we still support ….” It seems that you tried to separate two sentences with a comma.
To #3: I am sorry but this is totally unrelated to the second sentence. If the position you infer in the second sentence is that Unilever is going against its statements (buying sustainable palm-oil), I don’t see how reminding the CEO of a general sustainability statement is relevant. I would try to link it more to the actual palm-oil case. There is no supportive reason for your position.
To #4: The only thing I am missing here is the connection to the first sentence. You are mentioning neither palm-oil sources nor deforestation (issues stated in your introduction).
To #5: I am personally not convinced by this “obligation” to the customers. I think you should give a higher importance to the effects this could have on the company. Remember Unilever wants to be sustainable, it’s not a charity organization. (I gave you 2 points anyway because this “convincing issue” is opinion based I believe.)
To #6: This is good.
General Suggestions: Your sentences convey the argument that Unilever should be true to its commitments in a general level for the “sake” of the customers and financial effects. However, you deviate a lot and firstly talk about deforestation, then give general comments the CEO said and most importantly, do not mention an actual action that should be taken. I am guessing that you want the CEO to stop buying from Wilmar (?) but you neither give a way this could be done nor state it explicitly. It seems unclear to me whether your approach is meant to give the CEO some overview or suggestions on what to do. Finally, I think some words (devastating, cheap (who said it’s cheaper?) are unnecessary.
 6 #1: the objective of the message is clear (statement from Unilever) but the topic is rather vague (unsustainable encroachment).
#5: The second part of the sentence is not very clear. Do you mean full traceability of palm oil?

 

In the interactive part below, sort the good and the bad reviews into the appropriate boxes. Each number corresponds to the number in the review above.

 

The exercise above gives you an impression of the quality standards that we should adhere to. By writing reviews, you are not only a critical reader, but you can start to collaborate with the author.

 

License

}