You are on page 1of 2

Ashley Mooko

First Year Writing Unit 3


Christen Enos
11/18/2015
Peer Review for Sris Commentary:

What is the purpose of the commentary? Is the purpose clear from the very
beginning? How does it achieve its purpose? Is it successful?
The purpose for this particular commentary is discussing the current
situation, where STEM programs are being more emphasized as arts
programs are dwindling, and how this shift is actually detrimental to its
initial purpose. Sri adds to these events by stating that such creativity that
comes from the arts play a huge part in major discoveries within the
scientific field. He does so by bringing up multiple examples, statistics,
and historic facts to support his thesis. The essay seems to however split
into two parts: the suggestion of arts contribution to the sciences, and the
introduction to integration.

Does the commentary add a fresh perspective or does it just restate a


common thought that has already been stated? How does it do this? How
did the author convey the importance of the subject?
Sri did a very good job of introducing a new perspective on this issue, by
suggesting integration and innovation to educational programs (art and
science), is what will help new scientific discoveries thrive and prosper. He
stresses the importance of this subject by stating that diminishing the arts
within a childs education is highly detrimental to scientific evolution, and
how the disproportionate amount of STEM fields compared to the arts is
not the solution.

Is the commentary engaging? What part was more interesting than the
others, and why? Why would the audience find the commentary relatable?
Were there any parts that werent as engaging, and why?
There were many specific examples given throughout the entire essay,
which made the reader have a better understanding of the effects of such
implementation of merging arts and sciences together. I personally felt the
second paragraph to be a bit stronger than the first, as the the first
seemed to be too broad to bring the reader into the essay.

How is research used to support the argument? Is there research from both
views on the topic? If there is research, such as outside material or data,
present in the commentary, is it appropriately sourced and cited?

The sources were for the most part, properly cited or mentioned
throughout the entire essay. It further strengthened the argument and was
utilized effectively. However, there were some examples that left me
confused. Einsteins tendency to use a violin as a means to concentrate
did not seem to convince me (the integration and innovation between arts
and sciences leads to better discoveries). I wasnt very clear with what the
mention of the moonshot did to the essay.

Describe the structure of the commentary. Why did the author choose this
type of structure, and was it successful for the purpose of the document?
Are there clear transitions between the paragraphs?
The structure was overall very easy to follow. The transitions
made it very easy for me to follow the shift from proving the
given statement (integration between arts and sciences) to
suggestions and possible solutions to implement this idea. I was
a bit confused with what Sri was trying to voice in the beginning
(although I eventually did), as I first assumed that the essay was
suggesting that reintroducing the arts in the educational system
was the solution, later to find out Sri to be suggesting some sort
of integration into the system. I was also a bit unclear with the
suggestions made (how exactly could this be implemented?)
Maybe focusing more on the possible suggestions would help
strengthen the essays thesis, to emphasize the amount of
positive impact integration can have on new scientific
discoveries.

You might also like