1. Peer Evaluation Students will follow the format for an expository essay when evaluating information from multiple sources

2. What are the parts of a short response? Topic Sentence Explanation Warrant Analysis

3. Topic Sentence State the persons name and the job they are responsible for. Ex. She is the Bridge Builder (No – use proper noun) Karen is the Bridge Builder. (Yes)

4. Explanation Define the role of the assigned job. Ex. – Made connections (No – use complete sentences) – The Bridge Builder is responsible for making connections between the novel, Fahrenheit 451, and another book, movie, or real life. (Yes – specific from the rubric)

5. Warrant Give specific examples of the persons completion of the task. Ex. – She stayed on task. (No – connect the score to the assigned task) – Because Karen created a bubble map that effectively connected the novel to the movie Backdraft, she shows she’s skilled at the task of building bridges. (Yes – use the language from the rubric and specific examples from the discussion)

6. Analysis Connect the persons ability to complete their task with the appropriate score. Offer suggestions for improvement. Ex. – Karen deserves a 4 for the job of diction detective because she is skilled at connecting the novel to other sources. She can improve her grade by including more specific details from the text and her connection.

7. Peer Evaluation (5 – 100%) (TS) Karen is the Bridge Builder. (Ex) The Bridge Builder is responsible for making connections between the novel, Fahrenheit 451, and another book, movie, or real life. (W) Because Karen created a bubble map that effectively connected the novel to the movie Backdraft, she shows she’s skilled at the task of building bridges. She specifically stated, “The main characters and their jobs are the same – they are both firefighters, but in the novel they burn books instead of put out fires like in the movie.” (A) Karen deserves a 4 for the job of diction detective because she is skilled at connecting the novel to other sources. She can improve her grade by including more specific details from the text and her connection. (5)

8. Peer Evaluation (4 – 80%) Karen (Diction Detective) – 4 Gives good examples and makes use our books and asks us what we think Sometimes he can be slow/takes too much time to focus on one part of text His opinions make our group think about it in a different way. - Warrant given (multiple specific examples) - Analysis given with some implied suggestions for improvement. - Explanation of job missing - Written as notes instead of complete sentences.

9. Peer Evaluation (3 – 60%) Monitor - 3 Made sure to keep everyone on task and took care of the discussion leader. - No topic sentence - No or explanation - Limited warrant - Limited analysis

10. Peer Evaluation (2 – 40%) He had good questions. - No topic sentence - No explanation - Vague warrant - No analysis