Writer's
Name______________________Respondent's Name _______________________
You
have two tasks as you read your peer's paper. First you must annotate the
paper as you read through it. Next, you must answer the peer review questions
to help your partner revise the paper. Please note that the criteria created
in each question are the same criteria by which I will grade your paper.
Task One: Annotating
the Paper
Read
the draft all the way through, carefully. Then, go back and mark it up, annotating
the text. That is, in the margins, respond to the text as a reader, mapping
out what happens to you as you read. Remember, these questions are in addition
to those provided for the previous workshop.
Task Two: Answering
Peer Review Questions
- What
is the issue at stake? Has it been clearly stated in the paper or can
you discern it from reading the paper?
- What
is the author's position on the issue? Has it been clearly stated or can
your figure it out while reading the paper? If it isn't clear, does it
need to be?
- Who
is the audience for this paper? How would you characterize the ethos of
the persona the writer has adopted for this paper? What are the effects
of such a persona? In what ways is it an effective choice?
- What
moves does the writer make to APPEAL to the values of the audience? In
what ways has the writer persuaded the audience to accept her conjectures
about the issue as reasonable?
- In what ways has the writer persuaded the
audience (without insulting them) that their conjectures are less reasonable
than the writers? What sorts of appeals does the writer employ to convince
the audience to agree with them?
- In
what ways (or has) the writer conceded some claims? Another tactic is
to point out what the writer and the opposing party have in common. Would
you suggest the writer employ such a tactic?
- List the values
at stake in this argument. Has the author listed all the important values
that are at stake here? If not, mention those he has overlooked.
- Has the author carefully
and thoroughly considered the values at stake? Has she, for example, tried
to define what "justice" or "loyalty" means to each
of the participants in the argument? Has she shown how all the parties
to the argument are using this value to advance their own interests? Has
she considered whether the parties to the argument are invested in the
best or most persuasive values available in this argument? Try to answer
these same questions regarding any negative values that are at stake in
the argument, such as injustice or disloyalty. This is the most
important part of this assignment.
- In what ways has
the writer refuted the opposing party's claims? In what ways has she considered
the types of claims and the quality of evidence they use? Is the evidence
based on fact and reason, or does it appeal to emotions, appeal to character,
or appeal to values? Are these appeals sufficient?
- What advice do you
have for this writer?
