Fernheimer, Spring 2019
Oral Presentation of Peer Feedback
*with deep gratitude and credit to Doug Coulson of the DWRL for inspiring this assignment
Timetable:
2/14 Project 2:1 Due in Class Peer Review
2/19 Peer Review Oral Presentations
2/28 Instructor Feedback 2.1 Distributed
3/7 Project 2.2 Final due in Class
The Basics:
You will deliver a 4-5 minute oral presentation of a colleague’s work in which you critically engage with his/her paper and offer constructive feedback. You will write a minimum 175 word peer review note that is included as a “suggestion” inserted on the title of your peer’s shared Googledoc; it will be posted as a link to the appropriate discussion forum in Canvas using the naming convention: WRD112_S19_P2_1_Yourpeersfirstnamlastinitial_pr_yourfirstnamelastinitial
i.e.WRD112_S19_P2_ ElectraF_pr_SalsaF.docx if Salsa was reviewing Electra’s paper. You will be assigned a peer partner, and you will deliver your presentation on 2/19. This assignment is worth 5% of your overall grade for the course.
The Rationale:
This assignment is designed to facilitate a deeper level of peer review and collaborative learning, raise awareness of writing as a recursive process, reinforce basic rhetorical concepts, provide an opportunity to practice and develop presentation skills, and facilitate classroom discussion regarding the writing process.
The Details:
In this assignment, you will write a 175 word minimum letter of review and constructive feedback to be included in the electronic version of the paper. This letter will help you prepare to deliver a 4-5 minute oral presentation to the class (1) identifying and restating your peer’s argument (2)discussing the arrangement and analysis your peer uses to make the case (3) and offering constructive feedback or questions regarding your peer’s paper that might be helpful for the class to discuss to assist the author.
Your peer will in turn deliver a presentation regarding your paper. After each presentation, a (very) brief Q&A period will be permitted for the class to discuss the paper and ask the author questions if desired. The author may respond to questions during this period, but otherwise the author should not intervene to explain his or her work. Instead, the author should simply listen to the restatement and commentary offered by the presenter and the class.
You should approach your presentation as an opportunity to offer feedback and to improve one another’s writing. The purpose is to offer constructive feedback to aid the paper’s author in careful and significant revision of the essay. Your presentation must identify and restate the overall argument of the essay, explain the type of arrangement the author employs, and offer three major insights for revision. You should include at least 3 slides to aid your remarks and/or to highlight specific examples.
When the time limit is up, the presentation will be stopped. You should practice the presentation before you deliver it live to ensure that you can deliver it within the stated time limits. You will present standing from the front of the classroom and you will have access to the computer for Power Point slides.
Format Template:
(1) Describe the paper and identify its central argument(s)? How would you state the paper’s central argument or thesis? How does the author develop the paper? (Provide a very brief summary of the paper and its arrangement.) In what debates/discussions does the paper situate itself? What does the author contribute to the conversation the paper engages? (1-2 minutes)
(2) Identify the evidence/methods the author uses to support the claims made (1-2 minutes).
(3) Offer constructive feedback (1-2 minutes). Identify three broad areas in which the paper might be improved. Offer specific suggestions to aid in revision. What might be helpful for the group to discuss to assist the author?
Grading Criteria
Individual Speaker Name__________________ Final Score_________
Body
1. Swaying—does the speaker sway? (often to not at all) 1 2 3 4 5
2. Does the speaker exhibit distracting mannerisms? (often to not at all) 1 2 3 4 5
3. Do gestures help convey and dramatize key ideas? (never to often) 1 2 3 4 5
4. Do gestures seem natural? (artificial to natural) 1 2 3 4 5
5. Speaker points at visuals while explaining. (ineffective to effective) 1 2 3 4 5
6. Speaker turns to audience to interpret data.(ineffective to effective). 1 2 3 4 5
Voice
7. Unplanned pauses (many to few) 1 2 3 4 5
8. Fillers (“um” etc.—many to few) 1 2 3 4 5
9. Confidence (shaky or uneven to steady voice) 1 2 3 4 5
10. Projection (weak to strong) 1 2 3 4 5
11. Articulation of words or sentences (unclear to clear) 1 2 3 4 5
12. Voice modulation (monotone to varied) 1 2 3 4 5
Audience Awareness
13. Reading notecards (often to not at all) 1 2 3 4 5
14. Interacting/engaging with audience (not at all to often) 1 2 3 4 5
15. Pacing (too fast/slow to even) 1 2 3 4 5
16. Eye contact, scanning entire audience (ineffective to effective) 1 2 3 4 5
Content
17. Required visuals correctly incorporated? (incorrect to correct) 1 2 3 4 5
18. Are visuals clearly explained? (confusing to clear) 1 2 3 4 5
19. Clear identification of peer’s thesis provided?(ineffective to effective) 1 2 3 5
20. Clear description of essay’s arrangement provided? (unclear to clear) 1 2 3 4 5
21. Range of evidence used? (unvaried to varied) 1 2 3 4 5
22. Constructive feedback offered? (ineffective to effective) 1 2 3 4 5
23. Enough evidence included? (scanty evidence to convincing evidence) 1 2 3 4 5
24. Three suggestions for revision provided? (some to none) 1 2 3 4 5
Organization
25. Is speech focused (rambling/off topic to focused) 1 2 3 4 5
26. Is speech structure deliberate? (winging it to deliberate) 1 2 3 4 5
27. Strong focused beginning and ending? (unfocused to focused) 1 2 3 4 5
28. Transitions highlight speeches’ organization (unclear to very clear) 1 2 3 4 5
29. Language is easy to follow. (confusing/indirect to clear) 1 2 3 4 5
30. Technical mishaps handled smoothly? (thrown to handled smoothly) 1 2 3 4 5