In the article "Peer Feedback," by Jack Rawlins, the author explains the importance of having other people read what you write. Peer editor's make comments and suggestion about the text itself. It is not about "what's wrong" as Rawlins mention, it is about "alternative and connection." Often time people misunderstand the concept of peer feedback. They think is about pointing out all the wrong think instead of the good one.
             There are many myths about peer feedback. The first one and most common is student think peer editing is about correcting what's wrong. The editor can make comments about syntax or punctuation, but not in depth; Second the writer should seek for help when they think they have a "flawed draft;" And third you should wait until you finish before a reader to look at you writing. At some point in my life, I thought these myths were to be followed. As time went by I learned editing is part of the writing process. I remember I wrote a paper not to long go. I was unsure if I was conveying what wanted. So, I went to one of my friend and told him to edit my paper. As he gave me feedback and we discuss what different points, I discover what I really wanted to say. I think "...the reader is doing the writer a favor" as Rawlins stated. But how is it that the readers make the writers a favor? How do writers react to this statement? How do they react when they get feedback?
             The article describes two different types of responses: the submissive and the defensive response. The submissive writer will listen and agrees to all the feedback. The defensive tries to "fight off everything the reader says." The defensive always defend what he/she writes. They do not like other people to suggesting to make change. A recommendation from the article suggests for writer should ask why they are making that comment or the writer can clarify what
             ...