1. PEER REVIEW PROCESS MODULE FIRST YEAR SERIES WRITING CENTER UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA

2. WORKSHOP OVERVIEW  Why???????  The Conversation Model  Getting the Conversation Started  Anatomy of a Peer Review Comment  Keeping the Conversation Going

3. WHY??????????  Get help  Help others  Improve our written communication skills

4. THE CONVERSATIONAL MODEL  Writing as public  Writing as discourse (a conversation)  Peer Review Conversation (PRC)

5. GETTING THE CONVERSATION STARTED  The writer begins the conversation  Break the ice  Lead the conversation

6. ANATOMY OF A PEER REVIEW COMMENT  Praise  Area(s) that require revision  Suggestion(s) for the revision

7. ANATOMY OF A PEER REVIEW COMMENT  SAMPLE ONE Your opening sentence is great! I think you present Gee’s claim completely. But your summary doesn’t fully explain the claim you present. You state all of the elements of discourse, but you don’t talk about Big “D” Discourse and why we should analyze D/discourse. I think that’s because you ran out of words. You could condense what you present by chunking the elements together in themes instead of listing them one, two, three… Then you’ll have enough words left to finish explaining Gee’s claim.  SAMPLE TWO I really like the opening sentence you wrote for your summary, it is a great lead in to summarize what discourse analysis is according to James Gee. You provide a definition for discourse analysis that Gee gives, but I am not sure you explain very thoroughly what it means. You used a lot of terminology from the essay as well, I think if you expanded on the meaning of the terms you would have more of a summary of the essay rather than a summary of how Gee wrote the essay.

8. KEEPING THE CONVERSATION GOING  Peer Review Process  Text  Writer’s Self-Review  Conversation between the reviewers and author  Writer’s Reflection and Revision Plan  The writer should direct the conversation

9. WORKSHOP SUMMARY  Why???????  The Conversation Model  Getting the Conversation Started  Anatomy of a Peer Review Comment  Keeping the Conversation Going

10. GUIDED PRACTICE  Commenting: The next three slides will each present an example of a peer review comment. What suggestions do you have to improve the peer review comment?

11. EXAMPLE ONE I like how you emphasize Gee's example of language being like film and used that to build upon.

12. EXAMPLE TWO I think that listing the 8 jobs doesn't really flow! Especially since you had just made another list a couple sentences prior! Maybe it's because there are 8 or maybe it's because I feel like they should be organized better, maybe with a semicolon! And don't forget to include the title of the text too so we know what you're actually summarizing!

13. EXAMPLE THREE I think altogether this is a well written summary. You have done a very good job and I hope maybe you could revise mine as I feel like I need help in a lot of areas. Your thesis is good and I do believe it is short and sweet but maybe a little too short and sweet. Adding in another detail or two might dress it up a little more that way I know it is your thesis as soon as I read it. Other than that I was very impressed.

14. ARTIFACT-BASED PRACTICE  Pull up one of the Peer Review Conversations you have participated in recently. How can you make that comment stronger? Add an additional comment to the conversation where you strengthen the review you have given the writer.