Peer Review

Interview Questions with Peer 🎙️

The peer review activity was an invaluable experience, providing an opportunity to engage deeply with a peer's work while refining my own critical thinking and analysis skills. By reviewing another student’s project, I gained insight into different approaches to content audits and recommendations, which broadened my understanding of the assignment and the application of information architecture (IA) principles.

The interview questions provided a structured way to dive deeper into how IA concepts like taxonomy, labeling, navigation, and content inventory were applied in the assignment. They encouraged a detailed exploration of specific challenges, such as evaluating the site’s hierarchy or creating intuitive navigation systems. Asking about moments of ambiguity or reconsidered recommendations revealed how peers grappled with balancing user needs and business goals. These questions also prompted reflections on user flows and how the site structure supported or hindered them. Overall, this exercise helped me better understand how IA principles guide decision-making and enhance the effectiveness of content audits.

Difficulties & Reflections

The activity was a meaningful exercise, but it also highlighted how challenging it can be to be an objective grader. When reviewing someone else’s work, I found myself influenced by subjective factors, such as how much effort seemed to have gone into the project or how clearly the student’s style aligned with my own preferences. It’s difficult to separate personal impressions from objective criteria, especially when evaluating aspects like professional tone or argument depth, which can feel somewhat subjective.

Another challenge was balancing constructive criticism with positive feedback. While I wanted to be fair and honest, I also didn’t want to be overly harsh or discourage the person receiving the review. This added a layer of complexity to being an objective grader because I was not only assessing the work but also trying to predict how my feedback might be received.

The rubric provided clear guidelines, which was helpful, but even then, there were gray areas. For example, distinguishing between an “A” and an “A+” for things like professional formatting or the strength of recommendations required judgment calls that weren’t always straightforward. These nuances made me realize how grading often involves interpreting standards rather than strictly following them.