Unit 3 Peer Review Questions

Unit 3 (Synthesis of Perspectives) Peer Review Questions

Before you exchange papers with your peer, write your focus question at the top of your paper. Then, read your paper quietly aloud to yourself. Make any changes you see necessary, then exchange papers. Peer reviewers: you may put your answers on a blank sheet of paper or on the back of a page of your peer’s draft.

1. At the top of your peer’s paper, clearly write your first and last name so I can give you credit for your comments.

2. Read the focus question and the first paragraph.

a. Do the first sentences establish the issue to be discussed? If not, indicate to the writer that he/she has not yet provided sufficient background information.

b. Underline the thesis statement. Does it answer the focus question (that is, does it make a claim about the current state of knowledge of the issue addressed)? What specific elements of the issue does it address? How does it address complexity in the issue? Offer some suggestions for how your peer might improve the thesis and/or what he/she needs to add.

3. Read through the paper.

a. How is the paper organized (e.g. by sources, by ideas, by main points & sub points, etc.)? Write a roman numeral outline that corresponds with the paper so the writer can see whether the current organization makes sense.

b. What “sides” of the issues does the writer identify? Do the opinions present a balanced/fair view of the issue? What perspectives, if any, are missing?

c. Who are the “expert” sources the writer includes? List the sources the writer includes. After each name, include profession/reason for expertise, publication and what “side” the source takes. If any of this information is not indicated in the paper, make a note (e.g. “profession missing”).

d. If there are any quotes/paraphrases/summaries that are not introduced by an attributive tag, write: “anchor text needed.” If any quotes/paraphrases/summaries are missing a page/paragraph citation, write: “citation needed.”

4. Look for the writer’s original claims. Underline each original claim you see. In the margins, indicate whether the claim is arguable and whether it refers to the issue (which it should not) or the sources’ arguments about the issue (which it should).

a. The claims should make arguments about the expert opinion gathered from outside sources rather than the issue. By each original claim, indicate whether the claim refers to the issue or the sources.

b. Each original claim should be supported with evidence in the form of quotes/summaries/paraphrases. Indicate any places where claims lack sufficient evidence.

c. Evaluate the evidence provided. Does it support the claim the author makes? Is more evidence needed? Does the claim need to be “tweaked” to make sense or match the evidence?

5. Consider the language and tone of the paper. Is it appropriate for a general academic audience (i.e. does it avoid first- and second-person pronouns, contractions, slang, etc.)? Mark any places you think might be problematic. To suggest alternate word choice, underline the word or phrase and write “WC.” Indicate troublesome, awkward, or confusing phrasing in the margins.

6. Review the paper for grammar, spelling, punctuation, usage, and MLA formatting. Mark any errors/problems you see.

7. Consider the rubric posted on the blog. Based on this rubric, assign a grade to this draft of the paper. Explain why you assigned this grade to the paper. If necessary, offer suggestions for how the writer might improve this grade in the final draft.