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

Workshop #2 for Evaluation 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. 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
  1. What is the issue at stake? Has it been clearly stated in the paper or can you discern it from reading the paper?
  1. 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?
  1. 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?
  1. 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?
  1.  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?
  1. 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?
  1. Again, 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.
  1. 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?
  1. What advice do you have for this writer?