Reviewing other students' work can seem quite daunting. The ability to review is, however, a crucial skill in computing science. As with many things, the more reviewing you do, the easier it becomes.
First of all, what's the point of reviewing? That's easy to answer. The point of reviewing is to sharpen your critical eye so that, with some well-founded confidence, you can assess the quality of argument and evidence in a piece of writing, and also the quality of the writing itself. Once learned, this skill will never leave you and will stand you in good stead whatever your chosen profession. Being able to read critically is as essential to a cook as it is to a rocket scientist.
Here, we are going to look at the twin essentials: argument and evidence. For structure, go to Structure - essay outlines, click on the blue question mark you'll find there, and perhaps try some of those exercises. You might also like to look at the whole essay example in Structure - whole essay example.
Argument:
An argument is, quite simply, the point of view the essay is arguing. When you are reviewing, ask yourself: can I tell what the essay's point of view is? If you can't, that is a black mark. An essay's argument needs to clear, persuasive and backed up by evidence (evidence is discussed a little further down this page). An argument should also acknowledge alternative viewpoints and argue against them.
Let's take the essay question: Should parents implant microchips in their children to make them easier to identify in case they are lost or kidnapped? Why, or why not?
This is clearly an argumentative essay: it asks specific questions to which a clear answer is required. In computing science, the thesis (i.e. the stance the essay is taking) should be stated in the opening paragraph. (For other requirements of an opening paragraph, go to Structure - opening paragraphs.)
Counter-arguments should also be used to reinforce the essay's stance. For example, an essay arguing for the use of microchips might say: Some parents argue that implanting microchips will diminish a child's sense of personal responsibility for his or her own safety and actually increase the risk of the child being lost or kidnapped. However, this is not borne out by research from the Very Good Research Unit in America, which found that ... (reference would be required).
When you are reviewing, assess the way the argument is sustained from the essay's beginning right through to the end. Every sentence should add weight to the argument. Though the essay may draw on different forms of argument - practical and ethical, for example - and though some of the evidence cited may be conflicting, the essay's point of view should never be obscure. When the reviewer reaches the end, he or she may disagree with the essay's thesis, but should feel that a convincing argument has been made.
Argument should be cumulative and always relate directly back to the essay question. In the microchipping essay, for example, an argument might begin by outlining the physical risks of microchipping (citing evidence), go on to argue against the idea that identification of lost or kidnapped children would be easier (citing evidence), then broaden the argument to a child's right to privacy and the morality of invading this in pursuit of parental peace of mind.
One last important point for a reviewer to note: essay or assignment titles or questions are carefully chosen. In computing science, they tend to be quite long and can also incorporate more than one question. Essay writers must not shorten, paraphrase or in any way tamper with the question.
For example: if the essay title is:
Suppose that a society holds that it is wrong for one individual to eavesdrop on the telephone conversations of another citizen. Should that society also prohibit the government from listening in on its citizens' telephone conversations? When might eavesdropping be justified?
it must not be turned into:
Eavesdropping: is it wrong? or
Communication Surveillance by Governments: or
Wiretapping and Individual Freedom: or
The Social Contract of Eavesdropping
If the author of the essay you are reviewing has changed the title, that is a deep black mark.
Arguments must always be backed up by relevant evidence. An argument without relevant evidence is like an omelette made entirely from egg-whites: all froth and no substance. When reviewing, it is sometimes a good idea to make a mark beside every bit of evidence so that when you come to assess the essay, you can tell whether evidence has been plentiful and relevant to the essay question or rather thin on the ground and irrelevant. And of course all evidence must be referenced within the text, or in a footnote, whilst a bibliography must give a list of works the author of the essay used for research. If the bibliography lists only one book or one website, even if the evidence cited is good, it is far too narrowly based. You want to see a wide range of evidence from a wide range of trustworthy sources.
Poor sources include: Wikipedia, anonymous web-based articles, unattributed quotes, tabloid newspapers, unscientific surveys. Good sources include: relevant journals; books; attributed quotations from reputable sources; scientific surveys; and information given by your tutors.
At the most basic level, evidence will be practical. In the essay entitled: Should parents implant microchips in their children to make them easier to identify in case they are lost or kidnapped? Why, or why not? you might, for example, find cited evidence from an animal microchipping research project which backs up the essay's thesis (whatever that thesis is), or from a laboratory concerned with the physical effects of microchipping.
However, the same essay might also present ethical evidence: a quote from Liberty (the organisation concerned with human rights and freedom), for example, or quotes from philosophical works.
Irrelevant evidence in this instance would be how the author of the essay lost their microchipped puppy or a description of exactly how a microchip is inserted.
Remember: argument and evidence go together. When reviewing, the quality of both must be taken into consideration.