Peer Reviewed:Ivan Z

Peer Review Worksheet

Analyze your partner’s analysis of their two lab reports. How thoroughly did they address each category of information? Were you persuaded by their conclusions and analysis? Was their analysis clear and understandable? Responses should be 100-200 words long. Email your completed sheet to your partner and CC me: izheng001

Title: 

The title for both lab reports were long and specific as an effective title should be, that way readers would know if it interests them, and based on the title you could tell already on what the researchers will be proposing in this report from the title. The first lab report “Assessing the Safety Risks of Civil Engineering Laboratories Based on Lab Criticity Index: A Case Study in Jiangsu Province by Zhang et al. He was able to just search the lab report based on key terms such as civil engineering safety labs in google and was quickly able to find it. So based on the title and its specific location (Jiangsu Province), it had relevant and familiar terms, and for readers to know what to expect really. For the other report he explained how in the title this term Smart Materials is fairly new for readers and he has background knowledge and familiarity with this work and suggested it would be better as innovative materials. Structural Analysis in Civil Engineering: The Impact of Smart Materials on Construction Technology by Kale et al. Overall a really great explanation of the title for both lab reports, and analyzed the terms of the title well.

Abstract:

For the first report he explained it thoroughly and analyzed how the abstract of this lab report followed this chronological order, beginning with motivation on recurring accidents in civil engineering laboratories that prompted the researchers to study “factors influencing safety risks and how to assess and reduce the safety risks. He mentions that the methodology is mentioned in the abstract section on how, utilization of questionnaires and the criticity lab index to gain a better understanding  of major factors that compromises safety in the lab. And also sharing their findings with universities in the Jiangsu Province and providing these practical suggestions.

While the other report had this structure of introductory sentences, results, motivations and conclusions. Both lab reports followed a different format for the abstract and even if the first lab report has this chronological order format that Markel and Selber suggest the correct way to write the abstract both lab reports still achieved a well written abstract that was able to convey their findings and mirror the entire report. The analysis for both lab reports was very clear and understandable, and I didn’t read the report and I know what he is trying to say.

Introduction:

He was able to address this section pretty well and the analysis is understandable as well and how the first report utilized statistical data and setting regarding lab incidents. He also provided examples of the incidents and on how universities in the Jiangsu Province are poorly practiced. The second report showed the advancing technology and ideas of sustainability, so in this lab report it described the properties of these smart materials.

Methods and Materials:

Numerical Simulation and experimental testing for the material and methods for the smart materials lab he explained everything clear and concise and it was only three materials being tested. As mentioned in the analysis, The three main materials that were being tested were shape memory alloys (SMA), self-healing concrete, and carbon nanotube (CNT) composites. Compared to traditional construction materials, each of the 3 selected materials offer a unique property. SMAs were able to restore deformities when exposed to heat. Self-healing concrete contains microcapsules and bacterial agents that can repair cracks within the structure. CNT composites offered a good strength to weight ratio. And explained on what the researchers want to say and find.

Answer the following questions about your partner’s Letter of Introduction with a 50-100 word response. Offer a detailed answer to each question with examples from the letter itself. Email your completed sheet to your partner and CC me: [email protected]

Peer reviewer: Natasha Hasan

Writer: Jeffry Romero

Piece: Draft (#1) of Letter of Introduction

1.Does the author strike a professional tone?

– I feel that the author maintained a professional and respectful tone throughout the letter. As he introduced himself and his aligned goals with Burns & McDonnel, I saw how he connected his experience with electrical engineering to the company. Also, as he discussed his own qualifications, it did not feel overbearing or forceful but concise and related to the letter itself. I also liked how he discussed his professional goals with the company (where he specified why he’s drawn to them); it felt related and showed interest in a position with them.

2. Does the letter offer a proper balance between past background and future goals?

– I believe so, considering both are listed out, and some explained. The author introduces himself with his background and experience in engineering using his coursework and interests, and then throughout doing so, points it back to Burns & McDonnel’s mission with infrastructure. He also later lists out his specific professional goals after discussing how his experience and interests align with the company standards and employee community. I think I would have understood him better as an applicant and an engineer if he included more detail as to where his interests in electrical engineering stem from (a narrative element that makes him unique), but the format now is clear.

3. Does the letter demonstrate an understanding of the company or agency involved?

– I think there’s a decent understanding of Burns & McDonnel demonstrated through the letter when discussing their mission or culture, but I think there can definitely be more when it comes to how and where specifically he will contribute as an engineer. The third and fourth paragraphs when he discusses the company and his potential contributions are nice, but they don’t feel specific to the company. I think also discussing a certain project or initiative would be great!

4. Do you get a strong sense of the author’s personality and character?

– I don’t think I’ve really understood much of the author’s personality or character (or background past education) throughout the letter. I like that he wrote his qualifications, but I think if he included more about his own background and how he as an engineer developed skills from his experience, I could have gotten a better sense of him as a person. Also, I think that although his format for the letter is nice, it doesn’t enable much space to talk about himself and how he is unique from other applicants. I think another paragraph (after the one where he discusses his college experience, or before his list of interests) discussing him as an engineer and explaining his personal goals and interest would make this letter so much stronger.

5. Are there typos, spelling errors, or grammatical mistakes?

– I didn’t notice any off-putting errors or mistakes. I think, going back to the tone, that the style he wrote his letter in keeps it professional. I think the format of the paragraphs itself can be worked on (I’m not sure if an indent is necessary if there are spaces between a paragraph, especially for a letter). Also, I think addressing the letter to the company name at the top (part of the header) would make the letter clearer.

Peer Review Worksheet
Analyze your partner’s analysis of their two lab reports. How thoroughly did they
address each category of information? Were you persuaded by their conclusions and
analysis? Was their analysis clear and understandable? Responses should be 100-200
words long. Email your completed sheet to your partner and CC me:
[email protected]

Title:
You addressed the titles of both articles thoroughly and thoughtfully. You explained how the
first title was somewhat informal while the second was more precise and technical. Your
comparison was clear, and I was persuaded by your reasoning that the second title better fits
professional scientific standards.
Abstract:
Your evaluation of the abstracts was detailed and convincing. You clearly identified the strengths
of both, especially noting the inclusion of numerical data in the second article. This helped
support your conclusion that it was more informative and effective.
Introduction:
You analyzed the introductions carefully, pointing out structural differences while explaining
how both still fulfilled their purpose. Your explanation was logical and easy to follow.
Methods and Materials:
You thoroughly compared the level of detail in each study’s methods section. I agree with your
conclusion that the second article better supports replication. Overall, your analysis was clear,
organized, and persuasive