Peer Review Process
For your own paper
Name and section:
Arguments and Perspective: Writing a Narrative
Essay Title:
Title, description and rationale for the paper:
Profile of audience (identify readers and assumed views)
Thesis:
My claim is
I intend this primarily as a claim of fact value proposal
If I were to revise this essay, I would
Peer Review Process
Now you have drafts to work through. Give yourself enough time to really focus on this—figure 30 minutes per draft. Remember to make your comments legible—you might want to use a pencil—and to focus on the BIG PICTURE issues rather than grammar and style.
- Begin by writing your name and email address on the top right-hand corner of each peer draft. That way, if there's any confusion later, your peer can contact you to clear it up.
- Read through the paper once quickly. Resist the temptation to jump in with specific comments until after you've read through the whole paper once. Mark passages you think you might like to return to later - either because they interest you or confuse you. Put a wavy line under phrases or lines that are difficult to follow, and then move on.
Now go back, and draw out your comments further (write directly on the drafts):
- Scan the paper and underline what you take to be the thesis.
Begin by reading through the entire essay again, on your own. Make notes in the margins or on a separate sheet of paper as you read. If you like, you may point out (but do not correct) any mechanical or grammatical errors you find in the draft. The focus in revision is NOT on grammar or spelling - that is editing. But definitely tell your partner if the grammar, spelling, or punctuation were flawed enough to interfere with your understanding of the argument.
As you read, ask yourself:
- Where was the draft confusing? At what points did you have questions in your mind while reading?
- Does the writer's first paragraph effectively introduce the topic?
- Is the writer's thesis clear? Underline what you feel is the thesis statement.
- Are there places where the draft becomes less interesting? How could the writer change those sections to help hold the interest of her audience?
- Do any sections or paragraphs lack key information or adequate development? Are all sources cited correctly? Are quotations worked smoothly into the writer's prose?
- What does the writer do especially well in the draft?
- What one or two things would most improve the draft in a revision?
- You can write your essay like a letter, if you wish. First tell your partner what you think is the draft's greatest strength, and its greatest weakness. What should she work on first? What changes will help the most? Remember, you should always be as specific as possible: indicate which paragraph(s) you're commenting on, quote your partner's essay whenever necessary, and offer explicit advice on rewording and reorganization. But do not make changes for your partner. That's her job!
- Now get into the main body of the paper.
- Place a star (*) by points that interest you in this section and comment on what you're interested in.
- Place a question mark (?) beside large passages that you have difficulty understanding, and a wavy line under shorter phrases/sentences that you aren't following.
- Consider the extent to which the discussion fulfills the promise made by the thesis. What, if anything strays? What, if anything, would you like to have heard more about?
- Note places that might have been strengthened with quotes from the original.
- Does this section of the paper seem focused and grow organically or does it jump from point to point, like a list of different discussion points? If the latter is true, which one or two points seem like the best candidates for focus?
- Note any places where your peer gets back into summarizing rather than developing discussion. Do you feel that you are getting an organized analysis or a guided tour back through the entire essay?
- Does the essay seem complete, or would you like to see it develop into a larger discussion of the thesis topic?
- Finally, comment on the lead (first paragraph) and wrap-up (final paragraph):
- On a scale of 1-5 (5=high), how engaging and useful did you find the lead? Suggestions?
- If the lead doesn't mention the author or essay title, does the paper get to this information soon enough?
- Does the wrap up (final paragraph) "revisit" the thesis and synthesize the other elements of discussion, or does it primarily repeat the thesis or lead? What do you walk away from the lead understanding about the essay?
6. On the back of the paper, note answers to the following:
- What do you take as the focus or main point of this draft?
- What, specifically, interested you about the draft and/or target essay?
What do you suggest as the single most important revision your peer could make?
Superior 5 – 4 | Acceptable 3.5 – 3 | Needs Work 2.5 – 0 |
Your thesis statement clearly restates the question. | You have an adequate thesis statement. | You did not respond to the question. |
You clearly and convincingly supported your response with relevant evidence from the text and specific details. | You supported your response with some evidence from the text and adequate specific details. | You did not support your response with evidence from the text or you chose irrelevant evidence and lacks details. |
Your response is logical and well organized. | Your response is mostly logical and well organized. | Your response is not logical or lacks organization. |
You paraphrased most of the time and did it accurately. | You paraphrased most of the time. | You did not put your work into your own words. |
In your peer groups…
Take no more than three minutes to address these two questions:
- What, with regard to written or discussed comments, was effective in helping you to put your final draft together?
- What got in the way?
Revision memo:
Attach a revision memo to your second draft (Note: I won't read the drafts until I get one). Include:
- a) A summary of the comments and suggestions your peers made about your first draft.
- b) A description of what you changed in moving from the first draft to the second draft
- c) A list of changes you know that you need to make in your final draft, but haven't made yet.
- d) A brief list of points you would like me to be looking at and specific questions and concerns you have regarding this draft.
Evaluate your classmate using the rubric:
Superior 5 – 4 | Acceptable 3.5 – 3 | Needs Work 2.5 – 0 |
Your thesis statement clearly restates the question. | You have an adequate thesis statement. | You did not respond to the question. |
You clearly and convincingly supported your response with relevant evidence from the text and specific details. | You supported your response with some evidence from the text and adequate specific details. | You did not support your response with evidence from the text or you chose irrelevant evidence and lacks details. |
Your response is logical and well organized. | Your response is mostly logical and well organized. | Your response is not logical or lacks organization. |
You paraphrased most of the time and did it accurately. | You paraphrased most of the time. | You did not put your work into your own words. |
Please also comment on the effectiveness of the feedback (oral and written) given your 1st draft by the peers in your group. Please also comment on your own contribution to the process. NOTE: Make sure that peer names are on the drafts they marked up.
+ = attempted to read the draft from the point of view of my designated reader and provided constructive and thoughtful commentary.
= gave somewhat useful feedback, but…
- = provided comments that weren't particularly useful and/or didn't reflect much thought on
the part of the reader. It would have been helpful if s/he had done the following:
Names and ratings (including YOURS):
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
Comments on instructor feedback?
Comments on the process used to write this essay?
No comments:
Post a Comment