Essay #1 - City Tech OpenLab



Peer Review Guidelines

Please read through these guidelines fully before you begin peer review.

Here’s How to Approach Reading of/Responding to Drafts:

Read through your group member’s essay once to get a feel for how it works as a whole. Do not write any comments yet.

Now go through the draft again, using the provided peer review assignment to guide you in your response to it. Some questions require you to write a response on a separate sheet, while others require you to write on the draft itself. Make sure that you write legibly (I suggest you use print, not cursive, since if your peer cannot read your comments, this won’t be useful to them.

After you complete all of these questions, you should read through the draft again and make additional comments as you see fit. However, you should not correct spelling, grammatical, or proofreading mistakes (you should indicate them by circling them or otherwise making them, but you should not make changes to them for your peer). These marginal notes (where you ask questions, make comments, etc.) are an important part of your response.

You should start with the most important issues first ... if you believe the essay is mostly summary and not argumentative, you should all work together to help your group member brainstorm a thesis and subsequent claims. Peer Review is not simply one person (or two people) bombarding the writer with criticism/comments ... it is a conversation.  The person who wrote the essay should feel free to ask questions of the other group member/s as well (come prepared with any questions/concerns about your essay that you would like to discuss with your group member/s).

Remember that you should try to frame your comments in a way that is not insulting, harsh, mean, or alienating.  If you come to class and say, “your essay was bad” or “there was nothing good about it,” you are going to not only hurt your group member's feelings and destroy his/her confidence, you will also lose any hope of helping her (she will become defensive and just shut down).  After you give your comments, you should listen to what she was “trying” to convey in the essay, and then work together to negotiate revisions.

Do not simply answer questions with a “yes” or “no” (or a simple re-statement of the question).  You will not receive any credit unless you explain your responses fully and provide helpful/detailed feedback.

You should definitely ask questions (in the margins), suggest productive directions for your peers to pursue, provide helpful feedback. The least helpful thing you can do for your classmates is to just state that everything is “pretty good” or “perfect” in the essay. Your goal is to help him/her re-vision the essay, not to merely praise it.

However, under no circumstances is anyone to re-write any part of anyone's essay (e.g., you should offer suggestions for the thesis statement/topic sentences and ask questions that will help your peer to think more critically about his/her work and to produce more focused/argumentative claims, but don't simply write, “your thesis would be better if you re-wrote is as the following: ...”).

Here’s How to Approach the In-Class Discussion:

Make sure that you come to class for Peer Review and that you show up on time (this is very important)!

Bring a blank printed copy of your own essay to class on Peer Review day, so that you can take notes during the peer review based on your group members' comments (they will definitely be saying things/giving you advice that they have not already written down, and you want to make sure that you take note of it as it will help you to revise your essay).

In-class discussion of your drafts is meant to supplement your written response, not to simply repeat it. One of the most useful things you can offer your peers is your understanding (or lack thereof) of their essays: if a writer (your classmate) means to say one thing, but the reader (you) takes away something else from the essay, then there is a disconnect that needs to be addressed. First noting and then working to bridge this gap is an important step in the revision process.

When you come to class, you will break up into your peer review groups.  Spending ~20 minutes per essay, you will go through each person's draft separately.  You shouldn't simply read through the comments you have already written, or simply exchange papers and have people read (to themselves) the comments already there.  This is a chance for group work, dialogue, and an opportunity for an exchange of ideas.

At the end of the peer review session, you will exchange work. You should take home the feedback written about your essays so that you can use it as you revise. You will turn in these peer review comments with your final draft of each essay (along with your any pre-draft work and your first draft). 

Peer Review: Responding to Essay Drafts

[Part I – Argument: Thesis and Purpose]

1. Does the essay begin in an engaging/focused way, or do you finish reading it unsure about what the point/argument of this essay is? Does it give an overview of the essay’s argument as well as the text/author to be discussed? Is it specific enough (engaging with the text) or is it too vague/general? Write a paragraph below to explain your (specific) impressions of the essay’s opening.

2. In the space below, explain your thoughts on the essay’s thesis. Do not simply write that the thesis is “good” or “bad” or “specific” or “vague.” Tell your group member “why” the thesis is this way and offer suggestions for revision (based on your understanding of how the essay as a whole works/develops). Make sure to address the “so what?” issue and to consider the follow questions:

• Is the position of the author clear and specific (or is it a vague generalization)? Why or why not?

• Is the thesis engaging and more than an obvious statement of fact (is it new and interesting)? Why or why not?

• Is the thesis supportable (or does it seem farfetched or irrelevant to the topic)?

• Is the thesis directly related to a close reading/analysis of the text/topic chosen?

3. Does the essay specifically address the purpose of this assignment (to write an argumentative essay with based on a close reading/critical analysis of the text)? Below, explain why or why not (don’t just write “yes” or “no”).

4. Finally, consider the essay’s title (this should be a title specific to the argument of the essay, not a generic one such as Essay #2 or Nabokov’s Lolita. Is it appropriate for the essay? Is it specific enough in describing the essay’s particular argument? Below explain why or why not.

[Part II – Paragraphs: Content, Organization, and Development]

*For any of the following questions, feel free to also write a paragraph (on this sheet) explaining your thoughts if you feel there is a general trend occurring through the essay (and you are able to synthesize your feedback).

1. Go through each body paragraph and in the margins write the claim presented there (jot down just a few words … maximum one short sentence). If there is more than one main idea (claim), number them and write them down as well.

2. Then, go back and read the first sentence of each body paragraph. Does this topic sentence adequately represent the claim of the paragraph and explain the significance of this idea (why these details are important)? Does it answer the “so what?” question? On the draft, write “yes” or “no” next to each first sentence and then explain why or why not.

3. Is each paragraph clearly linked to the author’s thesis? Or does your peer ever stray from her main point? On the draft, indicate paragraphs/sections that are not connected to the essay’s main argument (are not relevant) and explain why.

4. Does each paragraph build on the previous one (develop the argument further), or is the argument repetitive (stating the same thing over and over again in slightly different words)? Provide comments (with explanations) in the margins of the draft.

5. Are there effective transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and ideas? Does the essay flow smoothly from beginning to end? Is the essay’s progression logical and coherent (do you feel that, as a reader, you get the information you need, the order you need, to understand the essay’s argument)? In the margins, indicate any places you feel that the writing is disconnected (and explain why).

6. Are there any points in the argument where you can honestly say, “so what?” (are they irrelevant, boring, obvious, or not specific enough)? Does your peer simply present facts/information and summarize her source? If so, indicate these areas in the margins of the draft and offer suggestions for improvement.

[Part III – Sources: Comprehension, Analysis, and Incorporation]

1. Does the essay demonstrate a strong knowledge of the text? Comment on the quality of your peer’s use of the text. Does s/he show a good understanding of the text’s arguments/ideas (and the way it uses logos, pathos, and ethos)? Are there any places where you think your peer misunderstands or distorts the meaning/content of a text or doesn’t address important aspects of it? Explain your thoughts in the space below and make comments in the margins to address specific cases.

2. How well does your peer incorporate examples/summary/quotations from the text into his/her own writing? Is this material well-integrated into the body of your peer’s essay (introduced and then explained), or is it awkward and out-of-place? Are they relevant to your peer’s argument (do they support a point he/she makes)?

In the margins of the draft, indicate whether examples/summary/quotes are appropriate (do they support the argument being made in that paragraph?), relevant (for quotes, is it necessary to use the author’s exact words here or is the point already clear?), introduced (not just thrown into the essay abruptly/without warning), and explained (does your classmate provide sufficient analysis of the example?). If the quote/detail is just fluff (thrown in to fill up space), please indicate so. Make suggestions for revision.

Also, if possible, provide a comment below synthesizing your thoughts on the incorporation of sources.

3. Is the use of the text (either direct quotations/examples or summary/paraphrase) balanced with your peer’s own ideas and analysis (does the source occupy too much – or too little – space in the argument)? Explain your response below.

4. Does your peer cite this source correctly (both parenthetically within the essay and in a separate “Work Cited” page) in MLA format? If not, offer suggestions for correction on the draft itself.

5. Does the essay provide possible opposing viewpoints/counter-arguments (or does the writer simply provide one side of the story)? Are these counter-arguments adequately answered/dealt with by your peer within the course of her essay or are they presented in a way that undermines your peer’s own position? Please explain below and offer suggestions for improvement.

[Part IV – Conclusion]

Consider the Conclusion (final paragraph). Does it provide a sense of closure to this essay? Does it adequately sum up the essay’s argument or do you finish reading it feeling unsatisfied? Does it present any new information that confuses you (new information should be developed into its own body paragraph)? Explain your specific thoughts below.

[Part V – Tone: Style and Diction & Sentence-Level Issues]

1. Describe the tone/voice of the essay: is the tone appropriate for both the assignment and the audience? Why or why not? (Consider which “person” you peer writes in – 1st, 2nd, or 3rd : this essay should be written in the 3rd person). Make specific comments on the draft and explain your thoughts below.

2. Is the essay written in the present tense (it should be!)? If not, please circle/highlight the incorrect use of tense on the draft itself and in group discussion in class discuss possibilities for revision.

3. Are there any words/phrases that seem awkward or harsh to you (that might insult/alienate/confuse readers)? Please address these diction (word choice) issues when they occur on the draft itself and, if necessary, make a synthesis comment here.

4. Pay particular attention to the “authority” and credibility of the writer throughout the essay. Does the essay seem over-confident/one-sided (too much like personal opinion rather than close analysis and logical argumentation)? Or does the essay seem too neutral (doesn’t really take a stand or support the thesis)? Explain below and offer specific suggestions for improvement on the draft itself.

5. Are there typos or sentence-level errors (spelling, grammar, syntax, word choice, etc.) that you notice? If so, please circle/highlight them on the draft itself and in group discussion in class discuss possibilities for revision. Sentence-level errors are particularly important when they interfere with the writer’s ability to convey his/her meaning.

Part VI: Overall Impression]

1. What did you take away from this essay (what is the author’s main point)?

2. Have you learned anything new from this essay? If so, what?

3. Finally, on a separate piece of paper (please continue to write on the back of this page) you should write a “terminal” (end) comment of at least one full paragraph of 5-7 sentences, addressed to the writer. Make sure to start off by stating the positive aspects of the essay (what you think is done successfully). Then, pick three main points that you think your peer should focus on as he/she revises this essay. Make sure to be as specific as possible. It is not necessary to repeat every comment you have made already … streamline/synthesize your feedback here to best help your classmate. You will need to read the whole essay through again (and look over the comments you have made) to figure out how to effectively/concisely sum up your responses.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download