Peer Review Round #1

Peer Readers Round #1 assigned on S – 7/26:

Ben (Blurpity) and Wuddy (Just an Average Guy)

Sarah and Morgan

Elise (Elisey) and Noa (Blabbermouth200)

Justin and Imelda

Nikhil and Jeremy (wattsj2)

Katie and Gerell

Round #1 Peer Review Prompts:

To begin:   Go to your assigned writer’s blog post (Beta Draft) containing the link to his/her website.   First, read the entire IP without commenting.  Just a clean read, seeing what works for you, what doesn’t work, where you find yourself confused or wanting more information. If the writer includes a video or links — follow all of them as you get to them in the document.   Open a Word document and place the following headings:

1.  Platform design:  Comment on the visual appeal of the platform the writer created for his/her IP (Inquiry Project).  Does the header or banner image make sense to you (having read the argument)?  Is the visual design easy to read and navigate?  What kind of tabs or headings can you envision?  What supplemental material could the platform design support?   What kinds of supplemental information would you be interested in seeing as a reader of this argument?

2.  About:  Each blog or website contains an “About” post.  Comment on what you would like to see in this writer’s “About” post.

3.  Title: Does the website or blog have a catchy, interesting title?  The title should not be the research question or a “research paper” sounding title.  The title can also have a sub-title.  After reading the article, suggest some ideas for titles or words that may work in a compelling title for this project.  A play on words is always catchy.

4.  Introduction:  The introduction of any article or essay should set up the problem the project addresses.  You may tell an anecdote in the introduction, but this story must hint directly at the issue the writer is addressing in her/his argument.  Generally boring statistics provide the least effective introduction.  If the writer includes statistics, suggest places where these can be shortened, or can appear later.  Suggest ideas for compelling introductions.  Writers can call on current events (there is always something in the media about most of your topics), or a specific example you’ve read about.  Remember, if the writer loses a reader during the introduction, the rest of the IP is lost (because the reader will stop reading).

5.  Claim:  Is there a directly stated claim early in this project (before or directly after the introduction)?   Is the claim arguable?  Identify for the writer: what is the first counter-argument you think about when you read the claim?   If you can’t think of a counter-argument, this may not be an arguable claim.  Also claims should be well written, carefully worded.  Please edit the claim if it is wordy or if the language is not accurate enough.  If you can’t identify the claim, please tell the writer this.

6.  Reasons:  Can you identify clear reasons in support of the claim?  Please go back through the beta draft, and in your word document, list all of the reasons you see in support of the claim.  Copy the exact sentence from the text that states the reasons.  Edit these reason sentences if they are wordy, have errors, etc.

Generally, a 3500 word text will develop a minimum of 3 researched reasons, but most often it’s four reasons, sometimes even five.

7.  Evidence:  For each of the reasons, go through and read the evidence that the writer has included to support the reasons.  Is this evidence taken from credible sources?  Are signal phrases uses to provide information about the credibility of the sources?

One error writers make is that they include a piece of evidence, but when you go back and look at the reason, you realize the evidence isn’t really related to the reason (or it may be vaguely related, but you aren’t sure about how).  Tell the writer when this occurs; writers can edit their essays to make the connection between reasons evidence more clear.

8.  Commentary and Analysis:  After compelling evidence, what does the writer do?  If (s)he leaves the evidence and moves on to a new idea, note this in your document,  Writers should comment and analyze evidence so that readers understand how the evidence helps to support the reasons and link back to the argument the writer is making.  Ending a paragraph with compelling evidence is not effective.  Ask the writer some questions to draw out commentary from them in this section.

9.  Visuals:  Comment honestly about the visual images embedded in the text. How / why are these images effective?  How/why are these images confusing and/or unclear in purpose?   If there are no images embedded, give the writer two suggestions for places where you think images would/could potentially be effective.

10:  Embedded links:  Follow all links.  Skim the article linked to.  After doing so, what can the writer add to her/his text to better introduce or follow up on this link?

SEND your word document with peer feedback via email to your partner.  Emails can be found on Blackboard — Communication — Send email — click your specific person’s name and move to right column.  ALSO:  send your peer review to ME: bboaz@vcu.edu  so that you receive credit for this important work!

Peer Readers Round #2 will be anonymous and assigned on M 7/28

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *