II. QUESTIONS FOR THE REVIEWER -Take a few minutes to formulate what you would like your reviewers to focus on.
III. IN-CLASS PEER REVEW
A Guide for Responding to Written Work (adapted from Peter Elbow, Writing without Teachers)
1. Each person has a copy of the written work.
2. The writer reads aloud.
3. The listener has a pen or pencil in hand to make quick marks showing immediate
responses (but don’t try to explain them during the reading).
- Make a straight line under or beside words or sections that work well. ____________________________
- Draw a wavy line under or beside words/sections that are problematic for some reason. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Put a question mark in the margin by something you have a question about. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
4. After the writer finishes reading, take a couple of minutes to look back through your marks and write brief comments explaining
- what worked well,
- what was problematic, or
- what your question was.
5. Spend a few minutes looking into the author's posted questions and respond discussing the comments you've made.
6. Give the paper back to the writer.
IV. TAKE-HOME PEER REVIEW:
PEER GROUPS
Tyler – Eric
Jason– Ross
Matthew – Cassandra
Ally – Josh
John – Doug
Justin – Joe - Molly
Emily – Jane
Read the essay you have been given and answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper. Then, write a detailed memo addressed to the author (start it “Dear xxx:”) in which you explain the paper’s strengths and weaknesses. Do not forget to insert the writer’s name as well as the title of title of the essay under analysis. On Tuesday, bring 2 copies of your memo: one for the writer and one for the instructor.
- What did you like most about this paper? Be specific.
- Does the essay fulfill the assignment? If not, why not?
- Are all the parts of an effective argument present in this essay (introduction, claim, supporting reasons and evidence, consideration several viewpoints)? If not, what is missing?
- What is the writer’s claim? Is it supported by evidence from the text?
- How much space does the writer devote to the competing/alternative viewpoints? (A sentence, a paragraph, etc.) Is this adequate? Does the writer treat opposing opinions fairly?
- What is the persona or ethos the writer creates for him/herself? How does he/she achieve this? Does the writer use appropriate language for his/her audience? Give an example.
- Which sections of the essay should the writer focus on for his/her revision? Explain why and offer suggestions.
