Home

Getting Started

Syllabus

Schedule

Assignments

Research Topics

Library Guide

Citing Sources

Writing Center

Grades

Forums

Canvas

Questions

Instructor

The purpose of your response to your peers’ writing is twofold:  to help them to improve their drafts and to engage in dialogue with them, offering your own input and ideas about their research question, methods, and conclusions when relevant.  Therefore, do not fear making critical remarks (which does not mean harsh).  Also, avoid statements like, “This is a really good paper.” 

You should print out your peer’s draft and mark it up as you read through it. Number the paragraphs so that you can refer in your typed response to instances of spelling and grammatical errors, poor word choice, ineffective or absent transitions, and poor sentence or paragraph structure and development, among other possible problems (see #12 below). You might place some comments and questions directly on the draft in the margins in preparation for your typed response.  Remember that only your typed, numbered paragraphs receive the peer review grade.

Separately, in your typed peer response—

• Use the questions below to produce coherent, distinct and substantial paragraphs in numbered form using complete sentences. Your paragraphs should be complete, so that a reader of your review would know what you are responding to.
• Give examples from your peer’s essay when appropriate to illustrate your comments.
• You may occasionally ask questions in your paragraphs. For example, "Why hasn’t the reform you are proposing already been implemented?"
• Make concrete suggestions for improvement, but avoid repetition. DO NOT answer questions with a "yes" or "no." This also discourages responses like, "Yes, there is adequate development of each point."

1.      Title:  After reading the entire draft, comment on the title.  Is the title appropriate?  Could it benefit from a subtitle?  Given the content and focus of the draft itself, how should the title be improved?  What would make it more informative (precise), interesting or compelling?  If you can think of an alternate title, actually write one out.

2.      Abstract:  After reading the entire draft, comment on the abstract.  What needs to be added?  What needs to be removed?  Are the narrowed topic, context for inquiry, original research question, main claim, and the significance of the writer's overall argument all adequately presented?  If the language is awkward, suggest specific ways to improve particular passages.

3.      Introduction and Background:  Type out your peer’s research question, which should appear somewhere in the introduction.  What are the main aspects of the introduction and background sections that help to set up the research question and main claim?  What works and what doesn’t?  Regardless of how brilliant your peer’s introduction and background sections are, suggest at least one additional specific idea.  Be more specific than merely saying that the writer should include a story or more historical background.

4.      Organizational Profile: What is the name of the organization, group, or programs that your peer has profiled?  Does the writer use at least two different sources to present the organization or program?  What relevant information has been provided, and what else do you think should be added?  How has the writer connected the organization to the research question?  How can the evaluation of the organization or program be improved? 

5.      Scholarly Review:  Are there any sources in this section that do not appear to be scholarly?  What are the main subissues, research studies and debates about the topic that the writer has reported from published scholarly sources?  Are the summary paragraphs organized by subissue rather than by article?  Are all of the articles relevant to your peer's narrowed topic?  Does it appear that your peer's sources are too narrow, in other words, that your peer has not adequately situated her/his research question within broader contexts and debates?  How can your peer's evaluation of the sources be improved? 

6.      Research Question:  Comment on your peer's research question at the beginning of the Argument section:  Is it singular?  Is it clear?  Is it too simple or too complex?  Does it avoid being yes/no, good/bad, either/or, for/against, pro/con, right/wrong, as well as not trying to solve a problem or predict the future?  Has your peer adequately explained the significance of the research question?  

7.      Writer's Argument:  Write out the writer's main claim, main reasons, and main evidence.  Does the main claim work as a possible answer to the writer's research question?  Does the writer engage in dialogue with the other scholars from the Scholarly Review?  How well has the writer incorporated quotations or citations from published sources in this section?  How is the writer addressing specific debates or disputes in relation to his/her narrowed topic, either about reasoning, evidence, or warrants (assumptions and values)?  Write out at least two of the writer's responses to acknowledged concerns or possible opposing views.  Are these fairly and accurately expressed?  What additional possible concerns or disputes can you come up with based on your own knowledge and reflection that the writer hasn’t anticipated or responded to adequately?  What needs further development in your peer's argument?  Be specific in making suggestions for improvement.

8.      Conclusion:  Are the research question and main claim (the proposed answer to the research question) clearly articulated in the conclusion?  Do they make sense, and do they follow from the research and discussion?  Does the writer discuss significance, i.e., answer the "So what?" question?  How does the writer wrap up the research paper?  What is synthesized or emphasized?  According to your judgment, what should be added, deleted, or emphasized differently?  What suggestions for future research or additional questions does the conclusion explicitly provide?  Make specific suggestions for improvement. 

9.      Quotations & Citations:  How many direct quotations has your peer incorporated into the body of the paper?  From how many sources has your peer quoted (note that there must be at least one quotation from all fifteen sources)?  Do all quotations and citations include author’s last name (or article title if no author is available), year of publication, and page or paragraph number?  Are the references to other sources that are cited (but not quoted) clearly labeled and discussed?  Comment on and/or make specific suggestions for improvement on a) the appropriateness of the choice and length of quotations/citations; b) the setup statements and explanations for the quotations/citations; c) the accuracy of the punctuation according to APA format requirements.

10.  References:  How many sources has your peer listed on the References page?  Has s/he met the required list of source types from the FRA guidelines?  In particular, there should be at least five scholarly articles; two websites (*.org and *. gov); a documentary, TV or radio program; and an article from Rereading America.  Is there adequate diversity of sources and source types, or has your peer relied too heavily on just a few sources?  Note if there problems in the formatting or punctuation of citations (make sure you understand APA format!).

11.  Structure & Formatting:  How well is the research paper structured and organized?  Is there adequate paragraph coherence and development?  Are the different sections well formulated, with appropriate headings and transitions?  Note any problems with and make specific suggestions for improving the formatting of the paper, including title page, margins, spacing, use of headings and subheadings, pagination, etc.

12.  Grammar and Punctuation:  List, by paragraph number, a few instances of spelling and grammar errors, poor word choice, etc. that you may have identified and give suggestions for correction.

13.  Other:  Make any additional comments that haven’t been covered by the above questions.