W12A. Peer-Reviewing the Anticipated Results and Discussion

1. Summary

1.1 Purpose of Peer-Reviewing Anticipated Results and Discussion

Peer review of the Anticipated Results and Discussion section trains reviewers to evaluate whether a proposal’s expected findings are clearly stated, realistically grounded, and meaningfully interpreted—while simultaneously giving the authors targeted feedback before final submission. Because the Anticipated Results and Discussion section makes forward-looking claims, the reviewer’s task is to ask whether those claims are coherent, connected to the earlier methodology, and persuasive in their account of significance and implications.

1.2 The Four-Stage Peer-Review Procedure

The session follows four sequential stages that move from independent individual reading to collaborative cross-group dialogue.

Stage 1 — Group assignment. Each research group decides together which other group’s Anticipated Results and Discussion it will review. This decision is made at the start of the session.

Stage 2 — Individual reading. Each student works individually. The assigned section is read three times, and the evaluation table in Handout 1 is completed during this process. Three readings allow the reviewer to first form a general impression, then assess specific claims, and finally confirm patterns and detect inconsistencies that only become visible on close re-reading.

Critical constraint: Students must not communicate with one another during Stage 2. Each reviewer must form independent conclusions based solely on the text. Consulting peers before completing the individual evaluation undermines the value of having multiple independent readers and can introduce anchoring bias.

Stage 3 — Group discussion. Once each individual has completed their evaluation table, the reviewing group reconvenes. Members compare assessments, discuss agreements and divergences, and consolidate their evaluations. Points of disagreement are productive: they often indicate genuinely ambiguous passages or claims that warrant revision.

Stage 4 — Cross-group dialogue. The reviewing group meets with the group whose work was reviewed. Feedback is delivered and discussed directly. Authors may ask clarifying questions; reviewers explain their reasoning. Both sides benefit: authors learn how their anticipated results and discussion are understood by an external reader, and reviewers practice articulating and defending specific analytical assessments.

1.3 Homework: Revise Based on Feedback

Following the peer-review session, each group should amend their Anticipated Results and Discussion in response to the feedback received during the cross-group dialogue. No formal submission is required for this revision, but the improvements should be incorporated into the final proposal draft.