Worksheet 4.3 Peer Review Instruction

[gunadi.rustian@upi.edu]

Instructions:

1. Exchange your Introduction draft with a peer.
2. Review the draft systematically using Swales’ CARS Model (Move 1–3).
3. Use the Integrated Peer Review Rubric to guide your evaluation. Evaluate each indicator using the 4-point scale:
   4 – Excellent: Fully meets the criterion
   3 – Good: Mostly meets the criterion; minor gaps
   2 – Fair: Partially meets the criterion; several gaps
   1 – Poor: Does not meet the criterion; absent or incorrect
4. Focus on  the following aspects:

• Rhetorical clarity and coherence
  Evaluate whether each CARS move is clearly realized and whether the argument develops logically across moves.
• Academic ethics
  Evaluate originality, ethical paraphrasing, and citation accuracy (APA 7), including relevance and credibility of sources.
• Digital ethics
  Assess the responsible and transparent use of digital tools (e.g., AI-assisted writing or reference managers) as reflected in the draft.

Section	Indicators	4- excellent	3- good	2- Fair	1-Poor
Structural Moves / Rhetorical Completeness	Move 1 – Establishing a Territory: topic importance, context, and relevant literature	Clearly establishes the research topic, context, and cites relevant literature comprehensively	Mostly clear; minor missing context or literature	Partially clear; several gaps in context or literature	Absent or unclear; no context or literature mentioned
	Move 2 – Establishing a Niche: identifying gap, problem, or research need	Clearly identifies a gap or problem that justifies the study	Mostly identifies a gap; minor vagueness	Gap identification is unclear or incomplete	No gap or research problem identified
	Move 3 – Occupying the Niche: purpose, research questions, study contribution	Clearly states purpose, research questions, and contribution of study	Mostly clear; minor details missing	Purpose or research questions vague; contribution unclear	Absent; purpose, questions, and contribution not stated
Academic Ethics	Originality and ethical paraphrasing	Writing is fully original; ideas are ethically paraphrased with no patchwriting	Mostly original; minor patchwriting	Frequent weak paraphrasing	Copying or clear plagiarism
	Citation accuracy	All claims are properly cited	Minor citation errors	Several uncited claims	No or incorrect citation
Digital Ethics	Ethical use of digital tools (e.g.,AI)	Tools are used transparently and respondibly as support	Minor overuse or lack of clarity	Overliance on tools	Unethical use of digital tools

After receiving peer feedback, students reflect on the comments to identify strengths, recurring issues, and areas requiring improvement. At this stage, students do not revise the draft yet; instead, they prioritize feedback and develop awareness of rhetorical, ethical, and disciplinary expectations. This reflective peer review process strengthens critical reading skills, deepens genre awareness, and prepares students for revision and refinement in the Hone Stage.

[Author]

Posts