The peer-reviews you conduct during 15 and 17 November will account for 5 points toward your total WP3 grade; in addition to filling out this form completely and with specific examples from and for your peers’ essay, you must also have a completed or very nearly completed rough draft present during our class session. Failure to adhere to either of these parameters will result in a loss of points for you and your partner. With regard to filling out this form, do not merely respond with “good job,” “everything looks fine,” “needs more detail,” etc. Instead, offer concrete suggestions as how one may alter particular aspects of the essay you review, even if you found the writing to be solid. As a reviewer, you want to be providing alternatives for how a writing group can engage their work during the revision process. At the end of each class session, give your written comments to writing group you reviewed so they can revise their work based upon your suggestions. Do not lose the comments, as they will be part of your final grade. If your group loses your peers’ comments, your group will be deducted points.
1) Does the introduction appropriately frame the essay, providing a context within which we can read and understand the entirety of the essay? Does the context address, in some manner, the concept of “community” and/or “writing” and offer us insight into how these concepts will be developed with regard to the materiality, processes, or spaces in which we conducted our pre-writing assignments? How do the writers attempt to grab our attention during the introduction; in general, does their technique work? Suggest alternatives.
2) Does the essay’s body engage the concept of materiality? If not, suggest relevant ways in which this can be done. If the essay’s body does in engage materiality, does it address all four conditions in which the pre-writing assignments were conducted? If not, why? Suggest alternatives. Furthermore, do the sections on materiality employ specific examples so as to demonstrate, concretely, how materiality affects both our understanding of community and writing?
3) Does the essay’s body engage the concept of process? If not, suggest relevant ways in which this can be done. If the essay’s body does in engage process, does it address all four permutations of the pre-writing assignments and how the process may have changed during each of those permutations? If not, why? Suggest alternatives. As with materiality, do the sections on process employ specific examples so as to demonstrate, concretely, how process affects both our understanding of community and writing?
4) Does the essay’s body engage the concept of space? If not, suggest relevant ways in which this can be done. If the essay’s body does in engage space, does it address all four spaces, locations, or contexts in which the pre-writing assignments were conducted? If not, why? Suggest alternatives. Once again, do the sections on space employ specific examples so as to demonstrate, concretely, how space affects both our understanding of community and writing?
5) If the essay, for example, intends to focus only one of the three elements we could discuss, but in a highly detailed and specific manner, does it at least gesture toward or acknowledge how the other two elements are affect by or affect the one that is highlighted?
6) Does the essay incorporate four, print sources into the fabric of the writing? Are the sources properly annotated (MLA formatting), both inline and in a closing work cited section? Have the quotations been incorporated into the fabric of the essay in such a way that the external material a) adequately appeals to ethos, strengthening the writers’ argument, b) makes sense and is relevant to the argument at hand, and c) supports the writers’ ideas, instead of seeming as if the writers’ ideas stem from, or a direct consequence of reading the external material?
7) In the conclusion do the authors address the "So what?" question, as opposed to merely summarizing their essay? To this extent, do the authors inform us, as audience members, why we should care or be interested in the argument their essay constructs? If employed, does the "So what?" question connect to the introduction's context in a relevant and meaningful manner? Offer commentary and alternative approaches to how the authors could formulate their conclusion differently and more appropriately.
8) General: What specific aspects of the essay worked best? What specific aspects of the essay functioned least well?
1) Does the introduction appropriately frame the essay, providing a context within which we can read and understand the entirety of the essay? Does the context address, in some manner, the concept of “community” and/or “writing” and offer us insight into how these concepts will be developed with regard to the materiality, processes, or spaces in which we conducted our pre-writing assignments? How do the writers attempt to grab our attention during the introduction; in general, does their technique work? Suggest alternatives.
2) Does the essay’s body engage the concept of materiality? If not, suggest relevant ways in which this can be done. If the essay’s body does in engage materiality, does it address all four conditions in which the pre-writing assignments were conducted? If not, why? Suggest alternatives. Furthermore, do the sections on materiality employ specific examples so as to demonstrate, concretely, how materiality affects both our understanding of community and writing?
3) Does the essay’s body engage the concept of process? If not, suggest relevant ways in which this can be done. If the essay’s body does in engage process, does it address all four permutations of the pre-writing assignments and how the process may have changed during each of those permutations? If not, why? Suggest alternatives. As with materiality, do the sections on process employ specific examples so as to demonstrate, concretely, how process affects both our understanding of community and writing?
4) Does the essay’s body engage the concept of space? If not, suggest relevant ways in which this can be done. If the essay’s body does in engage space, does it address all four spaces, locations, or contexts in which the pre-writing assignments were conducted? If not, why? Suggest alternatives. Once again, do the sections on space employ specific examples so as to demonstrate, concretely, how space affects both our understanding of community and writing?
5) If the essay, for example, intends to focus only one of the three elements we could discuss, but in a highly detailed and specific manner, does it at least gesture toward or acknowledge how the other two elements are affect by or affect the one that is highlighted?
6) Does the essay incorporate four, print sources into the fabric of the writing? Are the sources properly annotated (MLA formatting), both inline and in a closing work cited section? Have the quotations been incorporated into the fabric of the essay in such a way that the external material a) adequately appeals to ethos, strengthening the writers’ argument, b) makes sense and is relevant to the argument at hand, and c) supports the writers’ ideas, instead of seeming as if the writers’ ideas stem from, or a direct consequence of reading the external material?
7) In the conclusion do the authors address the "So what?" question, as opposed to merely summarizing their essay? To this extent, do the authors inform us, as audience members, why we should care or be interested in the argument their essay constructs? If employed, does the "So what?" question connect to the introduction's context in a relevant and meaningful manner? Offer commentary and alternative approaches to how the authors could formulate their conclusion differently and more appropriately.
8) General: What specific aspects of the essay worked best? What specific aspects of the essay functioned least well?
No comments:
Post a Comment