Name of the person whose essay you are reviewing___________________
Peer Reviewer (your name)______________
How to use this worksheet:
1.Before you begin to think about the questions we ask here, you probably want to read your colleague’s essay over all the way through in order to get a general sense of the its argument, organization, etc. When you do this first reading, try to refrain from making any marginal comments and instead focus on the essay as a whole.
- Now, read the questions on this worksheet. If you can answer the questions right away, based on your first reading, great! My hunch is that you will probably need to read the questions and then read through the paper more carefully using the questions to guide your second reading. You may jot down notes on this sheet (you might find it easier to open the document in a separate window or print it out and write on the hard copy). You might also want to highlight things in the margins at this point.
- Once you’ve read through the essay at least twice (though you might need to read through more times to try to describe what is happening in the essay) and once you’ve answered the questions below to the best of your ability, you should begin to write your colleague a reviewer’s response in the form of a letter. The letter should address your peer by name, be at least 175 words in length, and address the questions below in the following order:
Reflection
(Be sure to answer these in the order they appear below— Make sure you start with what you enjoyed or a compliment first!)
Thesis
Organization/Arrangement
Evidence/inclusion of stills captured from the video
Sentence level syntax, style, grammar, spelling, citation
Although this worksheet is intended to help you craft a helpful “reviewer’s response” you do not need to turn the worksheet in. Instead, you should insert your letter as a comment on the title of the essay, so it is the first comment your peer reads when she or he opens the document. You will be evaluated based on the quality of your letter and the in-text marginal comments. Try to be as descriptive as possible, if you find yourself lost or confused, try to explain why or how, rather than just saying “I’m confused.”
Clear statement of thesis/argument.
State the argument of your peer’s essay. Copy it verbatim from the essay itself.
[Remember they should be making argument about the way the oral history makes a claim about identity, argue whether or not it is successful for its intended audience, and give specific reasons (elements from the oral history itself—either analysis of its rhetorical appeals or use of arrangement) to support the claim.]
Is the argument clearly stated and well-supported throughout the essay?
Organization/Arrangement
Explain what you perceive to be the essay’s organizational structure. (Does it follow the order of the interview, is it based on the appeals (ethos, pathos, logos), is it based on topic, is it chronological? Why did you think your peer chose this organizational structure?)
Do you think it is the most effective organizational structure for the essay? What do you suggest that your peer might do differently, as s/he works to revise?
Things to consider: How do the paragraphs relate to and support the main idea or argument. Are there clear topic sentences that link the ideas in the paragraph to the essay’s overall argument about the video’s success for its specific/intended audience? Are the ideas within the paragraphs explicitly connected to the ideas that precede and follow them?
Evidence
Does the essay include a variety of evidence to support the argument/claim? Is the material contextualized and explained well within the paragraphs? Are they effectively introduced and placed
Style/Syntax
Are the sentences clear? Do mechanical errors detract from the overall readability of the assignment? Are there more than 3 type-os in the essay? Are there clear transitions between paragraphs and ideas? Are sentences and paragraphs varied in length?
Citation/Formatting
Does the essay have a works cited page, and are the items included on it properly formatted according to MLA? Does the paper follow the formatting and naming conventions for this class?
Reflection
What did you enjoy most about this essay? What did you learn about your own essay or process from reading your peer’s paper?
Briefly describe your reading process.
What was the hardest part about reading this essay?
What do you think your peer should concentrate on first as s/he works to revise?