What you’ll do Introduce the draft Summarize its main research area Offer discussion about the effectiveness of the organization Assess and respond to the author’s presentation and research

How to do it Read the guidelines from Ch. 4b in the St Martin’s handbook Your crit should be words Separate your analysis into paragraphs. Do not just write one big paragraph of text. You will critique students from across TTU’s FYC program Look to the essay’s works cited list to determine what text your peer wrote about. Read that text.

Text for analysis/thesis Identify the writer's thesis and then evaluate it for effectiveness. Determine whether the writer has selected a particular topic to present on Discuss whether the thesis is specific enough and of appropriate scope for this lit review

Overall Essay Structure Comment on the overall structure of the essay. For example, explain in detail whether or not the paragraphs are presented in a logical and persuasive way. Does the writer provide a clear introduction, body and conclusion? Does each paragraph begin with a clear topic sentence and transition into the next paragraph? Provide examples of claims and sources that are particularly effective or areas that need more improvement.

Peer Review Tips Do your best to avoid “yes” and “no” responses. Try to explain why a section or idea works or doesn’t work. Simply stating “yes” doesn’t help your reader. Give as much written commentary as you can. I will let you speak to one another for a few minutes, but written feedback is timeless.

A presentation adapted for the Texas Tech University FYW Program from a presentation to the University of South Florida FYC Program by Erin Trauth, Angela Tartaglia, Richard Ellman, Melissa Jones, and Andrea Dennin

Why should you complete peer critiques, anyway? To start, peer review has many benefits, including: The ability to get feedback on your writing before the instructor sees it The ability to see your own strengths and weaknesses after reading and responding to another paper A greater sense of audience – it is not just your instructor reading your work! The chance to learn new information from your peers about the subject you may also be writing on The opportunity for feedback, feedback, and more feedback!

Think About It: Imagine you have spent many hours on a project for this class, and you are counting on getting a good grade on the final draft. While working on a draft, you see that you have some problems in your writing, but you have looked at your own work for so long that you are not quite sure how to fix them. You seek help from your instructor, and you obtain some great feedback, but you also need some additional help. Where can you turn for more feedback?

Your peers! Not to fear! Help is on the way! This is why we have built peer critiques into our curriculum.

However, while the benefits of peer critique are plentiful, sometimes peer review doesn’t work as well as it could. Why is this the case?

Something to consider… “In a national survey of 560 teachers of writing and 715 of their students, Sarah W. Freedman found that many teachers grieved over the use of peer review groups because they had difficulty getting students to respond effectively to one another's writing. Vague comments proliferate.” The students, too, complained about the writing responses, saying that their peers rarely offered substantial help with their writing. The result is that such vague comments rarely translate into effective revisions, and this is unfortunate because when students receive concrete suggestions for revisions, they do revise with the suggestions in mind.” Sources: Freedman, S. (1985): The Role of Response in Acquisition of Written Language, Berkeley: California UP Ziv, N. (1983): "Peer Groups in the Composition Classroom: A Case Study," Conference on College Composition and Communication, Detroit, March

The essence of the peer review is your comments – without strong, specific comments, peer reviews can often be useless!

What might be considered “useless” or “vague” feedback? “I liked it.” “I liked your paper. It was really good.” “I didn’t like your thesis.”

“Your thesis is sort of long. “Your paragraphs confuse me.” “The introduction is good but could be better.” Does this feedback help you fix your writing problems? Probably not, right? It is not specific enough, and it doesn’t offer any real suggestions for improvement.

As a peer critiquer, you can't just say, "I liked it," or "I didn't like it." Instead, you want to give the writer information that will really help to improve what the writer has written. What is also important to remember is that while you should not be harsh or personal, you should be honest. Saying something works when it really does not will not help anyone.

There are, in general, three types of peer review comments: - Vague Comments - General, but Useful Comments - Specific, Directive Comments In order to make effective comments on a peer review, you want to make SPECIFIC, DIRECTIVE comments. Specific, Directive Comment General, but Useful Comment Vague Comment Most Effective Least Effective

Vague Comments: Comments that are full of generalities, providing little or no specific direction for revision and/or comments that simply praise or disagree with the writing Example: “Try to revise the whole second page” or “I liked it” or “I do not really like this part” Think about it: what do comments like this really tell a person about their paper that will help them REVISE?

General, but Useful Comments Comments that are too general but may provide some direction for revision Example: “I don’t like your introduction. Maybe describe the topic of public writing better.” A general, but useful comment is slightly better than a vague comment because it narrows what works (or does not work) to a specific area of the paper, as well as offering a specific suggestion. We can take this a step further, however, by providing a specific, directive comment. Note that this comment points to a specific place in the paper (the introduction) Note that this comment offers a suggestion for improvement

A Specific, Directive Comment Comments that not only point out a specific problem area of the paper, but also offer the writer a reason why the change is needed and a specific direction for revision. Example: “I do not think the introduction fully describes the topic of public writing in a way all readers will understand, which is necessary if you are going to fully analyze the topic in the next few paragraphs. Maybe you could use a quote that really defines public writing from a source, or you could expand on your first two sentences (which I have underlined in your paper).” Note that this comment points out a specific spot for improvement (the introduction) and states what exactly is wrong with it Note that this comment offers two suggestions for improvement, and that the peer reviewer underlined the sentences that the writer could work on Note that this comment tells the writer why the change is needed

Pop Quiz! In the following pairs, determine which of the two choices is the most effective comment: A. “This is disorganized!” B. "This section discusses both animal-rearing conditions and experimental methods, but the two are mixed together, making it difficult to focus on your points. Could you separate each into its own paragraph?” A. “The background and references given in paragraph 2 don't seem directly relevant to your thesis. I think we need references that give facts on the dangers of public writing specifically rather than references that explain the extensive history of blogging and its positive effects.” B. “How are these references relevant?” A. “Your thesis is unclear.” B. “I am having trouble understanding your thesis. The thesis needs to be clear so that the reader is sure of the position you are going to take in the rest of the paper. Could you state specifically the stance this paper will take on gun control?”

Now, let’s look at a few comments taken from real peer reviews and analyze their effectiveness. Remember, the best peer review comments include a specific statement of where an improvement needs to be made, why it should be changed and one-two suggestions for the writer in fixing the weakness!

For the peer review comment below, analyze whether or not the comment is effective in helping the writer. What type of comment is it (vague, general but useful, or specific –directive)? If it is effective, what makes it so? If it is not, what is the comment missing? What could the peer reviewer add to make the comment more effective? Activity adopted from Gloria A. Neubert and Sally J. McNelis, Peer Response: Teaching Specific Revision Suggestions, The English Journal, “I like your topic sentence, but it does not mix well with the rest of the paragraph.”

For the peer review comment below, analyze whether or not the comment is effective in helping the writer. What type of comment is it (vague, general but useful, or specific –directive)? If it is effective, what makes it so? If it is not, what is the comment missing? What could the peer reviewer add to make the comment more effective? “Your thesis statement needs to be more specific in regard to the advertisements you will be talking about in the paper, because it is important that the reader knows what to expect in the following paragraphs.”

For the peer review comment below, analyze whether or not the comment is effective in helping the writer. What type of comment is it (vague, general but useful, or specific –directive)? If it is effective, what makes it so? If it is not, what is the comment missing? What could the peer reviewer add to make the comment more effective? “Maybe you should fix your conclusion.”

For the peer review comment below, analyze whether or not the comment is effective in helping the writer. What type of comment is it (vague, general but useful, or specific –directive)? If it is effective, what makes it so? If it is not, what is the comment missing? What could the peer reviewer add to make the comment more effective? “I feel like your conclusion is not descriptive enough yet, and this paper should leave the reader with something to remember about San Diego if it is truly a travel ethnography. Maybe you could end with a quote from the musician you talked about in your last paragraph, or maybe use more of the second-person narrative you used in your introduction. I think something like that would be more descriptive and more memorable.”

In order to be an effective peer reviewer, remember to: Read the writer’s essay carefully – just skimming the paper is not enough to really help the writer. Be positive. Point out strengths as well as weaknesses, and be sensitive in how you phrase your criticism (“Could you clarify this section?” rather than “Your organization is a mess.”) Be honest. Don’t say something works when it doesn’t. You’re not helping the writer if you avoid mentioning a problem. Be specific. Rather than simply saying a paragraph is “confusing,” for example, try to point to a specific phrase that confuses you and, if possible, explain why that phrase is problematic. Focus on one or two major areas for revision – it is not your job to completely edit the paper, but instead to focus on major flaws and offer suggestions

Sample Introductory Paragraph According to the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, there are 1.5 million children adopted in the United States each year. In recent years there has been a shift in the choice between open or closed adoption. Researchers are beginning to challenge the idea that closed adoption is the only effective practice. This questioning affects 1.5 million children and their families. Even though many researchers claim closed adoption is the most traditional and logical choice for adoption cases, more and more researchers are encouraging to consider open adoption for all cases. While some researchers still are against open adoption, researchers are discussing how open adoption is becoming more common and most people prefer it.

Sample Synthesis Demick and Warner explains that more data about the affects of open adoption versus closed adoption on the adoption triad needs to be collected, because there has been very little research done on open adoption (Demick and Warner 287). Brown et. al also agrees with Demick and Warner. Brown et. al goes into further detail and explains in their article that because there is scarce data on open adoption there is no central standard to place on open adoption (Brown et. al 180). Despite not having set standards on open adoption practices, Brodzinsky and Schechdter state that open adoption is continually growing and moving to more openness. In their opinion, the growth of open adoption cannot wait for longitudinal studies (Brodzinky and Schechdter 330).

One more note… If one of the following describes you, you need to see me immediately after class: You’ve never logged into Raiderwriter You’ve never turned in any assignments You haven’t turned in an assignment since BA3