As a mid-process draft, your essays are still in the development and potentially major revision stage. For this reason, in your peer response today you will want to focus on idea development, organization, use of supporting evidence, and how well the writers analyze the rhetoric and rhetorical context of the text(s) chosen. At this point in the process, it doesn’t make sense to focus too much on what are called “later-order” concerns, such as grammar, punctuation, and spelling. (Why correct grammar in a paragraph that might get revised out of the essay?)
So the steps for today’s peer response are as follows:
**If you and your partners think it would be helpful—have your peer responders first read the text you are analyzing!**
1) Talk with your peer responders about what specific types of feedback you would like to receive and what specific questions/concerns you have. Are there specific aspects of your writing at this stage that you would like him or her to focus on? Are there areas where you've been struggling and where you especially need feedback? Also, if your “essay” is in more experimental format—a play, a letter, etc.—talk with your responders about that format and any specific questions you have related to this more experimental approach.
2) Each partner should read through the other partner group’s essay on the Wiki.
3) Then the two peer responding partners should TOGETHER make comments on the Wiki. That is, sit side-by-side at one computer and input your comments jointly. Make your comments in either all-caps or in italics so they will be distinguishable from the text. REMEMBER to consider the guidelines below as you give feedback.
4) Talk again with the other partner group about their essay.
Guidelines for Feedback
1) Comment on the aspects and places your partners asked you to address specifically.
2) Is the introduction interesting? If you *had* to make a suggestion for how to change the intro (and you do ?), what is that suggestion?
3) Do the writers address audience, purpose, context, and speaker? Do they clearly identify and analyze those elements for their readers?
4) Comment on places where the writers effectively analyze the rhetoric of the particular text. Comment on places that could use more analysis. Remember there is an important distinction between merely identifying what someone does and analyzing how and why what is argued is working. Do the writers provide enough specific examples from the text?
5) Use of quotations: Do the writers overquote or underquote? That is, do they have long passages of quotations with little explanation? Conversely, do they have long passages of analysis with little quotation? Make suggestions for integrating quotations more effectively.
6) Were there any places you were confused or had questions? Mark those places/ask
those questions.
7) Is the paper clearly organized? Suggestions for re-organizing?
8) Does the conclusion “fit” the essay? Does it do more than just summarize what happened and instead end with some pizzazz? If you *had* to make one suggestion for revising the conclusion, (and, again, you do ?), what would it be?
9) Overall, write
your reaction to their piece in a final summative paragraph at the end. What
do you remember most? What particularly struck you? What did you want to hear
more about?