Peer Response: Essay 1Two benefits of peer response: 1) you get critical feedback from a classmate on your paper before submitting it for a grade; 2) examining the strengths and weaknesses of others' writing can help you recognize strengths and weaknesses in your own writing.
How it works: You read your peer's draft critically, then respond with advice on how the paper might be improved. When you're finished, give the paper and your written response back to the author. Later, read your classmate's comments on your own essay, and if you agree with the suggestions, revise your paper accordingly, addressing the problems and weaknesses noted by your peer.
Turn in your classmate's response to your work along with your paper when you turn in the final draft next week.
Get mean (in a kind way): While you might comment on the paper's strengths, your primary concern is to focus on its weaknesses, particularly in the areas of focus, logic, structure, format, and overall development of argument. Be tactful and considerate in your comments, but critical all the same—do it nicely, but "let 'em have it." Praise and back-patting will not help your peer improve his or her paper.
Important: You may make brief notes on your classmate's draft, but write your response to the questions below on separate paper (and not on this handout). Indicate your name as "Peer" and your classmate's name as "Author." Your response should be approximately 1½-2 pages.
Instructions: Read the entire paper and then answer the following questions in order. Your comments are not restricted to these questions alone, though: any and all advice you can offer that might help your classmate improve the paper is appropriate.
1. Is the introduction neutral? Point out specific sentences in the intro that might give away the author's viewpoint.
2. Make suggestions for improving the author's set-up of the question in the introduction. Consider specifically whether the author might say more on why the topic is an important matter for the reader to consider: suggest ways to emphasize the issue's kairos or particular relevance at this time in our culture.
3. Evaluate the literal question raised in the introduction. Is the question the last sentence of the introduction (as it should be)? Is the question appropriate and effective? That is, does it a) define an issue that has two or more different sides? and b) address the assigned topic squarely? Make concrete suggestions on how the intro question might be sharpened or improved.
4. Does the body of the discussion address the issue raised in the "intro question," or does it seem to stray in places, addressing a different issue? Indicate where the discussion gets away from focusing on the stated central argument.
5. Evaluate the "opposing views." Does the author present one or more answers to the intro question and then later argue against that view or those views? Do the opposing views answer the intro question directly? Are they presented before the author's own views, as they should be? Does the paper present the opposition viewpoint fairly and fully? How could the opposing views be improved? If there are no opposing views, or if those used are weak, suggest additional opposition viewpoints.
6. Consider whether the author succeeds in refuting or discounting the opposing views. Is the author effective in explaining why the opposing views are not the best answer(s) to the intro question? Suggest improvements in refutation or concession, or transition between the opposing views and the author's side of the argument.
7. Are the author's primary points elaborated appropriately in separate paragraphs? Does the topic sentence in each paragraph of the author's views answer the intro question directly? Point out any paragraphs where two or more separate points are combined and might be more effective if they were divided into separate paragraphs.
8. Which one of the author's points is least effective? Explain why and suggest improvements. Are other points also ineffective? If so, why? and how could they be improved?
9. Evaluate the author's use of quotations. Explain why ineffective quotes are ineffective, and suggest other quotes that might work better to illustrate particular claims.
10. Evaluate the the effectiveness of the conclusion. Does it leave the reader impressed with the culmination of the writer's argument, or does it just fizzle out? Suggest improvements, particularly in the thesis statement.
11. Explain why the paper is or is not likely to convince the opposition to think like the author does on the topic.
12. On the draft itself, identify problems in grammar, diction, punctuation, etc., paying special attention to the golden rules, nuggets, "simple stuff," and quotes and documentation matters we've covered.