1. Peer Review Workshops In this PowerPoint, there are multiple peer review options: Claims Complex Claims Whole Paper Drafts Proposals Multimodal Project Rough Drafts

2. Introducing Peer Review For the first time you do peer review in your classroom

3. Peer Review Free write: what are your experiences with peer review? What worked for you? What’s worked in the past? What hasn’t? What do you wish in a picture- perfect world, that your peer review session would be like?

4. Peer Review Expectations

5. Musical Chair Peer Review For a short peer review where you get multiple perspectives

6. Musical Chairs Peer Review Take out your written draft claim for SA1 – put on your desk Get a pen Clear everything You walk around until the music stops. Then, you sit down and give feedback on the claim.

7. Peer Review Directions Questions to consider: What do you like about their claim? Why? What could be improved and why? Do they clearly make a claim of fact about how rhetorically effective the visual artifact is? Are they using key words from our discussions of rhetorical analysis (ethos, pathos, logos, organization, alignment, proximity, contrast, etc. // audience, genre, purpose, context, etc.)

8. Revision Plan Write a revision plan (approx 250 words). You may do it any written format you’d like (free write, bullets, answering the questions via numbered list, etc.) What common comments were made? Were there any discrepancies in feedback? What feedback do you agree with and why? What do you disagree with and why? Re-write claim:

9. Peer Review: Complex Claims For an online, in-class peer review!

10. First Thing to Show Students

11. Group Work

12. Peer Review Instructions  Put your claim in the DB. Try to color-code your own claim.  Find your partner’s claim. Respond to their post. Copy and paste your partner’s claim into the text box.  Try to color code the complex claim (claim, evidence, stakes, counter argument/concession) – this can be different than what the author did!  Write an end comment explaining: What are your overall thoughts? What is a strength of their claim? What are they missing and what suggestions do you have for adding? What could they expand on/make more clear? Etc.

13. An example of how this looks…

14. Peer Review: Pitches Oral Presentations Tailored to Improving Proposals

15. Peer Review: Academic Paper For a major paper

16. MP1 Sample 1: Before peer review, we will first look at a sample major paper. In groups, do the following: Group 1 and 2: Comment on the complex claim. Do they have all parts of the complex claim? What is a strength/weakness? Overall suggestions? Group 3 and 4: Comment on organization. Does the organization follow the road map? Are there clear topic sentences/transitions? Is there an order that you would recommend that is different? Group 5 and 6: Comment on intertextuality. Find moments of intertextuality. Is this done productively? Not as productively? How does the writer signal these moments with sign posting

17. MP1 Peer Review Identify the CC – does the paper have a CC? Which elements are strongest? Weakest? Suggestions for improvement? Does the paper’s organization follow the road map? Is the claim supported with evidence? How could we improve it? Are quotes being used? Box at least one quote: does it have all the elements of the quote sandwich? How could we fix it if not? Write quote bomb next to any quote that is a quote bomb. Star any moments of intertextuality. Do these moments help support the claim? How are they effective? Circle moments of sign posting. How does the paper use transition words to sign post moments in the paper (think CA, intertextuality relationships, stakes, etc.)? In the end comment, give overall suggestions. Address any concerns that the writer asked you about.

18. Peer Review: Pitch! Pre-proposal brainstorming

19. Pitch Prepare a 3 minute “pitch” of your project. This pitch should highlight: The background/context of your issue Your proposed genre for solving that issue, your purpose, and your intended audience How you plan to create that proposed genre (what evidence will you use, what’s your methodology, timeline) A detailed description of the organization/lay out/design choices The stakes of the project

20. Before Pitching: PRvw Questions To make the most of this peer review, write down 2 questions that you’d like your group to answer. These questions should give you the feedback you hope to receive after the pitch – they should give you insight on how to create a better proposal and a better project.

21. Pitch: Instructions Each of you have 500 dollars to spend (total). You will listen to three other pitches and decide how much “money” you want to give the pitch giver. On one side of the check fill it out with the amount you give the project given the stakes of the project, how well you understand the methodology, and how convinced you are in the success of the project. On the back side, write the following feedback: Why have you given them the amount of money that you have? Do you have any suggestions on the methodology? Answer the 2 questions that the group has asked you.

22. Pitch: Revision Plans Based on your feedback, create a revision plan that discusses: What things do you need to make clearer in your written proposal? What new things should you incorporate? What did people think were strengths of your pitch that you should highlight in you proposal?

23. Peer Review: Research Committees For a peer review of proposals

24. Genre Analysis

25. Peer Review Read your partner’s draft, and note: Statement of purpose, plan of action, evidence, stakes Write 2 “margin” comments per section. Then, decide if you reject, accept, or revise/resubmit their proposal. Give an explanation of your decision: What can they do to strengthen their proposal? What is strong? What kinds of evidence do you still need? Is the timeline clear and doable? Are you persuaded that this is a problem and this is a viable solution? Why/why not?

26. Peer Review: Multimodal Project Drafts Mock-Ups/Rough Cuts/Rough Drafts

27. With the Pitch, you have a “Summary” On p.111-113 of “Writer/Designer,” the authors explain what should be included in a summary. It should include your intended purpose, genre, and audience – along with design choices you are making/you have questions about.

28. Peer Review!  Read the Summary  Look at the artifact draft and write a review that is 400 words (p.113-114 overviews what should be included in a “review”). You can do a chronological or a reader response review. Make sure to answer the following somewhere in the review: As a reader do you feel that the project meets your needs and expectations? Does it miss anywhere? For each question or comment that you pose to the author, make sure to include comments on both the structure and the content.

29. Revision Plan Meet with your group and create a revision plan using the questions on p. 117-118. (around 250 words)