Guidelines for Peer Review
Peer review is some of the most important work you'll undertake in this course, for two reasons:
1.Peer review will be the primary mode for receiving feedback on your work - two of your major writing projects will undergo the peer review process with your classmates, and all of your writing projects will receive feedback from me. It will then be up to you to use that feedback to tailor your revision and/or writing strategies for future writing projects. Revision is how good writers get from rough first drafts to polished, final products, and peer review guides you through the revision process. It’s often difficult to look at your own writing objectively; for that reason, getting others to read your work can help you to see areas where your drafts fall short and get advice on how to revise and improve.
2.Peer review will also help you to become a better writer yourself. The more practice you get looking at the writing of others and engaging with it critically, the better you will get at looking at your own writing objectively. This is the hidden benefit of peer review: not only is it practical, it is an exercise in critical thinking.
Tips for Successful Peer Review
Peer review is only useful if done respectfully and thoughtfully. Below are some suggestions for approaching peer review:
·Be purposeful. Peer review (and revision!) is a major part of the writing process, and this is a writing class, so peer review is essential. You should treat peer review as seriously as you treat writing your own essays and documents.
·Be equitable. If you exchange papers with a classmate, and you spend half the time on your classmate’s paper than your classmate spends on yours, then your classmate has gotten the short end of the stick. Please put as much effort into your peers' work as you would like to see given to your own.
·Be nice - but not too nice. Give the kind of feedback you would want to receive. Ask yourself, “is the feedback I’m giving useful?” And remember, peer review only works if you push each other. I'm not suggesting you treat your peers with malice, of course, but I do want to emphasize the need to be thoughtfully critical of each other's writing. You should be aiming for constructive criticism, which doesn't happen if you simply say the writing "looks good" or "the first sentence is clear," etc. The point of peer review is to engage with the writing and give honest, thoughtful, kind feedback in order to make it better.
·Consider the stage of the writing process.The stage of the writing process will determine what kind of feedback you give. For example, if it's the first round of revision, it would be pointless to focus on issues like grammar or sentence-level issues because those sentences might not even make it into the next draft. Thus, focusing on the wrong issues can be a waste of time. Instead, it can often be more helpful to focus on larger issues, such as organization, argumentation, or evidence. Also, pay attention to what kind of feedback your peer asks for - this can help guarantee that you are prioritizing the feedback that the paper needs.
·Don't simply be "corrective."Revision (as opposed to editing) is generative - that is, revision is a stage in the writing process where the writer is still producing more content. So, as you peer review, do not simply offer feedback that "corrects" content that is already in the draft. Think about what is missing. For example, does the paper need more evidence? More analysis? Perhaps it is missing something that the prompt asked for? Keep in mind the stage of the writing process the paper is at and think about where the paper needs to go.
·Be specific. As you offer feedback, be specific about what you mean. For example, instead of saying something isn't clear, identify specifically what about the writing isn't clear. Are the terms too broad? Are the terms incorrect? Is the sentence worded in a way that makes it difficult to understand? Offer suggestions for clarity. The same goes for suggesting more content. Rather than say something like "it needs more," be specific about what the paper needs. For example, you might say something like, "your summary ofxseems out of context--I recommend adding a paragraph before the analysis that more thoroughly provides historical context forx."
Example Feedback:
Below is an example of some feedback provided on a paragraph. The feedback is critical, specific, and follows the guidelines. Notice that the reviewer is critical of the paragraph without being mean about it.
Paragraph:
A public sphere as it exists in America today, has largely emerged from social media, allowing anyone and everyone to say and produce almost anything you want to any and everyone. The public sphere in regards to social media even allows people that don't live in America to have some sway. Such as influence of social media in the outcome of the 2016 election, fake news or not, was perpetuated in part by "Endingthefed.com, a site that was responsible for four of the ten most popular fake news stories on Facebook, was run by a 24-year-old Romanian man (Townsend, 2016)."(Allcot, 7) In the paragraph relating to the quote, Allcot and Gentzkow examine some of the people and companies responsible for the "fake news" trend that came about during the 2016 election. Regarding Habermas, the public sphere formed by American social media isn't done through state authority, but individuals of the public having an intent to cause deceit to other members of the public.
Response:
A.Look over the document as a whole. Comment on your first impressions.
·
o
§
§
§What do you immediately notice?The paragraph is primarily about social media, the public sphere, and fake news, though it's difficult to discern the connection among these three topics.
§What are your reactions?This paragraph needs a clearer claim/topic sentence, so that there is something concrete to explain and defend. The current topic sentence is--"A public sphere as it exists in America today, has largely emerged from social media"--is far too general. What is there to explain, argue, analyze, defend? A better topic sentence would say something like" "The power of social media has granted almost unlimited access to the public sphere, therefore fracturing public discourse into millions of unchecked threads." This sentence gives you something to explain and to provide evidence for. It gives you key words to unpack so that analysis can happen.
§Give specific examples of what is and isn't working for you as a reader.Organization isn't working for me. It's difficult to tell how each sentence relates to the next, etc. As I mention above, this is likely do to the fact that there isn't really a solid, specific claim to defend
§B) For each paragraph:
·
o
§
§
§Summarize the purpose of the paragraph in a sentence or two.Social media is the primary vehicle of the public sphere in twenty-first century-America, and that was a problem for the 2016 election? Again, it could be clearer.
§Does the topic sentence correspond to your summary of the paragraph?Somewhat.
§Is the paragraph well organized?No
§Is there a proper topic sentence?No
§Is there a proper explanation?No (Why are there 2 citations after the quotation?)
§Is the evidence presented clearly and accurately? (Are the sources properly cited?)No, see above
§Is there effective analysis of the evidence?No. The only "evidence" I see is a reference to the "Social Media and Fake News" article, but it's not clear enough what the reference provides evidence for.
§Is there a concluding sentence?The last sentence refers to Habermas and seems to offer a new claim. How this claim relates to the rest of the paragraph is unclear. Perhaps this claim should be the topic sentence of the next paragraph? Perhaps the claim needs to be synthesized with the current topic sentence?
§C) Where should the writer go from here?
§The author needs to decide what the primary point of this paragraph is and then restructure the paragraph so that it clearly states and explains that point. Is the paragraph's claim about social media or the election or both? If both, the connection needs to be clearer. Once the primary claim is clearer, the sentences that follow need to more clearly respond to that claim. At the moment, they are kind of all over the place. The quotation, for example, is out of context, and I don't understand what its purpose is.
This peer review process is in several parts. Please read through the entirety of this prompt carefully. Please also review theseGuidelines for Peer Review.
Step 1:Posta rough draft of yourTechnical Instructionsby Wednesday, July 20 by 11:59 PM
Pleasepost your draft asa .doc or .docx file,so that it can be edited. (DoNOTpost a .pdf or .pages file).In your post, respond to these questions:
·What are your instructions about (briefly)?
·What are your biggest concerns about this draft and what would you most like feedback on?
Your peer reviewers will fill out a detailed rubric to assess the clarity of your technical instructions. Therefore, this draft should be as complete, clear, and accurate as possible.
If you post your draft late to the discussion post and nobody claims your paper because of your lateness, you will not be able to make up the peer review. If you submit your rough draft within the allotted time frame and nobody claims your paper, please let me know as soon as possible so I can re-organize your peer groups.
Step 2:Claimtwo peers’ Technical Instructions by Thursday, July 21 by 11:59 PM
No later than Thursday evening, please reply to two classmates’ posts (from Step #1). Write a message that says, “I will review this document.”
Please note:
·Drafts must be claimed by onlytworeviewers - if one student's paper already has two peer reviewers, please move on to another. The goal is to have all assignments claimed by two reviewers.
·If all the papers have been claimed two times but you still need to claim another one, then (and only then!) can you claim one a third time. If you are a third reviewer on a paper when there are other papers available still to be claimed, you will get only half credit for your review.
Step 3:Reviewtwo peers' Technical Instructions by Friday, July 22 by 11:59 PM
Complete your reviews for the two sets of instructions you claimed. For each review, you will:
1.Fill out a peer review rubric, and
2.Compose a memo to your classmate explaining your recommendations.
In your review, please be as detailed as possible.Give the kind of feedback you would want to receive yourself.
Here is how to complete the review:
1.First, download and review theTechnical Instructions Peer Review Rubric
Actions
. That way you'll know what to look for when reviewing the technical instructions.
2.As you read the technical instructions, annotate or take notes on the document (to help track what you’re noticing about it).
3.After reading the technical instructions in full, fill out the peer review rubric. For each set of instructions that you review, save a rubric with the writer's name on it. Then, highlight or underline the appropriate language in each category that applies to your peer's work.
4.After you complete the rubric, composea memoaddressed to your classmate explaining your feedback and recommendations. For a sample “Instructional Memo,” please see Case 7-6 inThe Essentials of Technical Communication(p. 163). In your memo, please include the following elements:
·
oHeadings that highlight the writer's "Strengths" and "Areas for Improvement.” I recommend using the rubric criteria when appropriate.
oBullet points under each heading that provide clear, specific comments and recommendations for revision.
·Submit the memo and the rubric as a response to the writer's original post. Pleasecopy and paste the written memointo the response box andattach the rubricas a file to the discussion post.