Peer Workshops

Make sure to REFRESH this page each time you visit!

For general peer editing advise click here OR type http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/general/gl_edit.html into your browser

Missed Peer Workshop (<click here)

Summaries

Read the summary carefully and answer the following questions:

What do you like best about your peer's summary? (Why? How might he or she do more of it?)
Is it clear what is being summarized? (i.e.: Did your peer list the source, and cite it correctly?)
Is the thesis of the original essay clear in the summary? (Write out what you think that thesis is.)
If you have read the original source, did you identify the same thesis? (If not, how does it differ?)
Did your peer miss any key points from his or her summary? (If so, what are they?)
Did your peer include any of his own opinions in his or her summary? (If so, what are they?)
Did your peer include any unimportant details in his or her summary? (If so, what are they?)
Where there any points in the summary where you were lost because a transition was missing? (If so, where and how might it be fixed?)
Where there any points where you were lost because some information seems to have been omitted? (If so, where, and what seems to be missing? Why do you think it might be important?)

by Sandra Jamieson and Rebecca Moore Howard, with help from Jody Caldwell

Synthesis

Read a peer's synthesis and then complete the activity below. The information provided will help the writer check that his or her paper does what he or she intended. This activity is meant
to be constructive, so make sure you are not being vague or simply answering ‘yes’ and ‘no.’

What do you like best about your peer's synthesis? (Why? How might he or she do more of it?)
Identify your peer’s focus sentence. (Physically mark this in their paper.) What helped you identify that this was the intended focus? Is the focus placed in the most appropriate/ effective location or is it buried or delayed? Explain.
Did your peer’s introduction help set up the focus statement? (Or was it awkward or confusing to follow?) If the introduction could be stronger, explain how.
How many sources did your peer use in his or her synthesis? Did he or she use direct quotations or paraphrase information from all of the sources listed on their Works Cited? Is the source use balanced? Why or why not?
Is it clear what is being synthesized? (i.e.: Did your peer list the source(s), and cite them correctly?) Explain.
Is it always clear which source your peer is talking about at any given moment? (Mark any places where it is not clear)
Look at each paragraph and write its main point in the left hand margin next to it. For each main point, answer the following questions:

Does the writer start and end with his/ her strongest points/ sub-topics?
Does the writer repeat himself/ herself?
Should material be moved together? Should material be separated?

Were there any points in the synthesis where you were lost because a transition was missing or material seems to have been omitted? (If so, where and how might it be fixed?)
What is the over all organizational structure (point by point, chronological, pro vs. con, least important to most important, etc.) of the synthesis essay? Does this structure work? (If not, how might your peer revise it?)
How is each paragraph structured? Is this method effective? Why or why not? (If not, how should your peer revise?)
Does your peer’s conclusion remind readers of the most significant themes/ points he or she has found and the ways those themes/ points connect to the overall topic? Explain.
Was there a mechanical, grammatical, or spelling error that annoyed you as you read the paper? (If so, how could the author fix it? Did you notice this error occurring more than once?) Do not comment on every typographical or other error you see. It is a waste of time to carefully edit a paper before it is revised!
What other advice do you have for the author of this paper?

Comparison

*Note* This activity is meant to be constructive, so make sure you are not being vague or simply answering ‘yes’ and ‘no.’
First, take time to look through both of the internet advertisements your peer has chosen to compare. Then, read the comparison carefully and answer the following questions:

What do you like best about this comparison? (Why?)
Is it clear what is being compared? (list the two products/ideas) Is it clear why these things are being compared?
Is there an argumentative thesis? (Write it out.)
Has your peer used a point-by-point organizational structure?
Look at each body paragraph and underline the topic sentence. Then write its main point in the left hand margin next to it. After you have identified each paragraph’s main point, briefly list each example/ supporting point your peer uses.
If the main point of each paragraph is not obvious, suggest a how your peer could better organize their paragraph(s), using the examples/supporting points they give.
Does the writer include sufficient evidence to support the thesis? (Regardless of whether or not you are convinced by the thesis, please evaluate evidence to support it. Is it appropriate? If not, what other evidence might be more useful?)
Are the introduction and conclusion effective? (If so, how? If not, why not? How could they be improved?)
Were there any points in the comparison where you were lost because a transition was missing? (If so, where and how might it be fixed?)
Were there any points where you were lost because some information seems to have been omitted? (If so, where, and what seems to be missing? Why do you think it might be important?)
Has your peer analyzed each advertiser’s advertising technique? Explain. Has he or she considered the various rhetorical strategies at play? Explain. (What additional advertising and rhetorical strategies do you think your peer needs to consider in his or her comparison?)
Has your peer made an assessment of which advertiser has the stronger overall marketing campaign?
You have taken a look at the original sources. Do you find the comparison fair? (If not, why?)
Has your peer’s logic been fair or has it succumb to any argumentative fallacies? Explain.
Was there a mechanical, grammatical, or spelling error that annoyed you as you read the paper? (If so, how could the author fix it? Did you notice this error occurring more than once?) Do not comment on every typographical or other error you see. It is a waste of time to carefully edit a paper before it is revised!
What other advice do you have for the author of this paper?

Sarah Minegar

Rhetorical Analysis

*Note* The activity is meant to be constructive, so make sure you are not being vague or simply answering ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ First, review the speech(s) your peer has chosen to evaluate.
Then, read the rhetorical analysis/ comparative rhetorical analysis carefully and answer the following questions:

I If your peer wrote a comparative rhetorical analysis, begin here:

* Is it clear what is being compared? (list the two speeches) Is it clear why these speeches are being compared?

* Has your peer used a point-by-point organizational structure?

1. What do you like best about this analysis? (Why?) Where could it be stronger?

2. Look at your peer’s introduction. Did your peer adequately establish the context of the speech? Where could your peer improve?

3. Is there an argumentative thesis? (underline it in the text)

4. What organizational structure has your peer used?

5. Look at each body paragraph and underline the topic sentence. Then write its main point in the left hand margin next to it. After you have identified each paragraph’s main point, briefly list each example/ supporting point your peer uses.

6. If the main point of each paragraph is not obvious, suggest a how your peer could better organize their paragraph(s), using the examples/supporting points they give.

7. Does the writer include sufficient evidence to support the thesis? (Regardless of whether or not you are convinced by the thesis, please evaluate evidence to support it. Is it appropriate? If not, what other evidence might be more useful?)

8. Has the analysis addressed the modes of persuasion? (logos, ethos, pathos) In which area(s) could your peer work to find more examples?

9. Look at your peer’s conclusion. Does the conclusion revisit the analysis/research s/he used to support her/his thesis? Does the conclusion address what the reaction was to the speech at the time and whether or not the speaker’s rhetorical technique achieved the intended effect? Does the conclusion address how her/his analysis/research and thesis applies to the broader audience (like readers today)?

10. Were there any points where you felt transition could be stronger? If the transitions were effective, how-so?

11. Were there any points where you were lost because some information seems to have been omitted? (If so, where, and what seems to be missing? Why do you think it might be important?)

12. You have taken a look at the original source(s). Do you find the analysis fair? (If not, why?)

13. Has your peer’s logic been fair or has it succumb to any argumentative fallacies? Explain.

14. Was there a mechanical, grammatical, or spelling error that annoyed you as you read the paper? (If so, how could the author fix it? Did you notice this error occurring more than once?) Do not comment on every typographical or other error you see. It is a waste of time to carefully edit a paper before it is revised!

15. What other advice do you have for the author of this paper?

Sarah Minegar

Goal-Based Peer Evaluation

by Kathryn Inskeep

Goal: Formulate effective thesis statements.
Highlight the thesis / focusing statement and answer the following questions:

- Is the thesis placed in the most appropriate/ effective location or is it buried or delayed?

- Is the thesis unified? Does it assert one main idea or does it try to argue two or more different, bulky issues?

- Is the thesis restricted? Does the thesis provide a limited focus that be discussed in depth within the page restriction or is the thesis broad, sprawling, and superficial?

- Is the thesis clear? Are the terms specific or are concepts vague, undeveloped, or fuzzy?

- Is the thesis original and energetic? Does the thesis avoid generic formula statements? Is the thesis boring and predictable?

      Goal: Develop fluidly and logically structured organization patterns for essays, using a crafted thesis to map out the subsequent content of the paper and
      structuring paragraph placement in such a way that there is an ongoing, logical, unfolding of ideas.
           Look at each paragraph and write its main point in the left hand margin next to it. Then list these points on a separate sheet of paper and evaluate the organization by answering the following
              questions:

- Is the structure logical? Do the body paragraphs connect to and develop the thesis?

- Does the writer start and end with his/ her strongest points/ sub-topics?

- Does the writer repeat himself/ herself?

- Should material be moved together? Should material be separated?

Upon answering these questions, refer to the list and mark down suggested changes.

      Goal: Demonstrate ability to form a critical viewpoint, and to support this viewpoint by making reasoned connections and by using outside sources as
      needed.
                Bracket all evidence/ source reliant material, including summaries, paraphrases, and quotations and answer the following questions:

- Does the essay require less support? More than 60% bracketed material may be too much.

- Does the essay require more support?

- Does the writer rely too much on too few sources?

      Goal: Demonstrate a facility with properly using sources in their own writing, incorporating both framing language and properly formatted in-text
      citations, as well as formulating appropriate works cited pages.

Look at the bracketed sections of the draft and highlight the framing language/ introductory phrase at the beginning of the source-reliant material and highlight the citation at the end. If any portion of this “bookend” is absent mark the space with an asterisk.*

Goal: Write focused paragraphs with cohesive topic sentences. Paragraphs should develop one idea.
Read each body paragraph, underline the topic sentence, and answer the following questions, marking the draft as needed:

- Do paragraphs have more than one main idea?

- Should longer paragraphs be separated into two paragraphs?

- Do paragraphs need to be developed more fully?

- Do topic sentences avoid using source-reliant material?

- Do topic sentences connect back to the previous paragraph?

- Do topic sentences connect back to the explanatory thesis?

- Do topic sentences introduce the material to come in the rest of the paragraph?

Sarah Minegar, Drew University, 2007-2008