syllaweb
course policies
assignments
course links
research links
writing guides
web searching
thoughts on grading

Workshop #2 for Conjectures Assignment

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. NO MARKS ON PAPER. 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. Ask questions where you're not sure what the writer means/is up to (e.g., what do you mean here? so you're saying . . . ? why do you say this?). Indicate agreement/disagreement (e.g., Me too. I see this differently. I don't share your assumptions here. The same thing has happened to me.). Convey confusion (e.g., I get lost here.). Indicate quality of the argument (e.g., I find/don't find your reasons compelling. I'm convinced/not convinced by this.) Indicate where evidence/reason is needed that is not included (Bec/ . . . . And your evidence is . . . ? You say this bec/ . . . ?) For each paragraph, write in the margins what you think the writer is trying to do in each paragraph and what you think they are trying to say. Formulate these things as questions. For example: In this paragraph, are you trying to describe feminist conjectures?

Task Two: Answering Peer Review Questions

  1. As a reader, do you feel that the writer has connected with you as a reader by giving you enough background to understand the issue, how it arose, what the key points of contention are, and why this is an issue? What makes you think this as a reader? What else might the writer add and why?

    2.  
  2. Do you find that the writer identifies all parties to the issue, (those who have a stake, are `interested' parties, on the issue)? Who are the stakeholders? Can you think of another stakeholder the writer should include and why?

    3.  
  3. Does the writer clearly identify the key conjectures for each stakeholder(s)? Remember, conjectures are depictions of the way the world is perceived by a particular group. They flow out of ideologies the group subscribes to. Do you feel that each of these conjectures is accurate and fairly represents the stakeholder(s)? For example, does the writer explain why a conservative conjecture is this—what ideology it supports and how?

    4.  
  4. What conjectures seem inaccurate or misrepresented and why? Are the conjectures made reasonable because the writer uses authoritative support?

    5.  
  5. Does the writer explain clearly whether the parties are in stasis and if they are not, what will need to change? What should the writer add and why?

    6.  
  6. Were you able to follow the conjectures and understand the differences as a reader or did you find yourself having to go back and reread previous conjectures? If so, is this a problem the writer could solve by reorganizing the paper or by making connections back to previous conjectures? Explain what would help the paper and why.

    7.  
  7. Are there places in the paper where you felt that the writer lost your interest or your understanding or could hold your interest more effectively? What might the writer add and why? Consider particularly how the writer could connect to the reader more effectively.

    8.  
  8. Could the writer improve the paper by adding signals to the paper such as transitional devices (however, in contrast, furthermore, . . .) or clearer topic sentences at the beginnings of paragraphs. Give specific suggestions as to what should be done and where.

    9.  
  9. What has the writer done well in this paper?

    10.  
  10. If this were your paper, what would you revise and why?