Peer Review

I have never been a fan of peer reviews. I don't handle criticism well. I personally like to believe that I am perfect, and you should to. This week I have been exposed to a new way a peer reviewing. We are given a list of questions to answer about other's papers. It is an interesting concept; however, I'm not sure if I am completely on bored with the idea. I prefer having a hard copy, and running through them making correction with grammar and suggestions while my attention is on a specific part. The questions we are given are about the over arching topic and the effectiveness of how it is delivered. The critiques my peer reviewers have given me are all positive, but that doesn't let me know what I should fix. I would prefer critiques to tell me what I am doing wrong. I am not sure if I can get improvements from how this is set up. If I were to change the way peer revisions were set up, I would make partners and have them grade each other's papers. First they would go over grammatical errors and then I would answer the questions. Instead of trying to revise two or three paragraphs with minimal comments, I would have students work one on one to give as much advice in a class period.