| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Whenever you search in PBworks, Dokkio Sidebar (from the makers of PBworks) will run the same search in your Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Gmail, and Slack. Now you can find what you're looking for wherever it lives. Try Dokkio Sidebar for free.

View
 

Project Two Rough Draft Workshop

Page history last edited by Todd Breijak 7 years, 11 months ago

Project Two Rough Draft Workshop

 

 

 

Rough Draft Workshop II: Return of the Rough Draft Workshop

 


 

Rough Draft Workshop Instructions:

 

Your major assignment for this week is to perform a peer review of two of your peer's rough drafts for Project Two (You can find the drafts of your peers' project linked from their personal pages listed on the roster). You can find your group assignments near the bottom of the page (you will be evaluating the two people in your group that are not you). Before 11:59 PM this Monday (10/27/14), you must review your peers' essays and, at a minimum, answer the nine questions listed below (there's no need to paste or retype the questions themselves; you can simply label your answers with corresponding numbers for the questions below). Please also provide any other advice you think would be helpful in aiding your assigned peers in revising their rough drafts. You should input your answers to these questions and any other advice you have as comments on the page that hosts their rough draft.

 

As mentioned on our syllabus, although you will not be given a formal grade for your peer review, failure to participate in this peer review exercise will result in a 5% reduction in your final grade for Project Two.

 

Peer Review Questions:

 

As you critique your peer's paper, please comment on any sentence-level and grammatical errors you detect, as well as any other advice you may have, but please also answer the following nine questions:

 

1. Does the paper have a clear thesis that follows the "skeletal structure" we've discussed? I.e., doe it both identify the central argument(s) of the work it is analyzing and identify the trope and techniques the author/director uses to make their point(s)?

 

2. Does the paper have a clear exigence and purpose (by explaining the exigence and importance of the work it is analyzing and/or the exigence and importance of analyzing this piece of work)? Do you have a solid idea of why this argument is an important one and/or why it is or should be interesting to an audience made up of people such as yourself? What is the exigence?

 

3. Does the project contain ample support statements/support paragraphs that refer to and back up the thesis?

 

4. What is the strongest part of the paper (most interesting, most powerfully argued, etc.)?

 

5. What is the weakest part of the paper (or the part that needs to be improved, further developed or extended)?

 

6. Does the author make appropriate references to particular moments in the text (quotations, paraphrases, etc.)? Are there enough references to both back up the thesis and allow a reader to follow the argument being made?

 

7. On the sentence-level, did you find the paper to be well written? Does it contain poor grammar or sentence-fragments? Is it unnecessarily wordy at times?

 

8. Does the project read like an analysis rather than a review? I.e., does show a clear attention to the structure and technique of the piece rather than simply summarizing it and explaining its strengths and weaknesses?

 

9. What grade would you give the paper if it was a final draft?

 

 

Groups:

 

Iven

Mustapha

Alex

 

Eric

Elton

Kayla

 

Briona

De'Jea

Ryan

 

Adam

Nader

Jordan

 

Rabeeh

Rasha

Abby

 

Lakshmi

Andrew

Kiera

 

Jaspreet

Emily

Kelly

 

Jason

Brian

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.