Paper Two Peer Editing Exercise

CRTW 201

Dr. Fike

You must have a draft of paper 2 to participate in today's peer editing exercise. Anyone who has at least 4 full pages of text to share with classmates may participate. Anyone who does not should leave. 

The purpose of today's exercise is for you to write a series of responses to one or two classmates' papers.  This should take you at least a full hour.  Note:  You should write, not talk.  Your written answers will take the form of a standards check (see the questions below). Your job in much of the following exercise will be to apply these to your classmates' papers.  In our final 15 minutes, give your comments to the author. At this point, you may discuss your responses as well. I will check in with you at 5 minutes before the end of the period.

Here is a reminder about the structure of paper 2. The first thing you should do is read over your partner's paper to ensure that it has this structure. If not, write a comment about it.

• Introduction with thesis:
  • Note that there is a formula for the thesis in the assignment sheet: I will use + two or more standards + to argue something about your focused topic's effectiveness in reaching its intended audience + because of some concept related to your focused topic. That concept is likely to come from Bordo or Berger.
• Body:
  • Analysis by the elements (any order that seems best to you), but you might do the following:
    • Start with purpose and Q @ I (note the difference between the ad's Q @ I and your paper's Q @ I). Presumably the purpose is to appeal to a specific audience.
    • Proceed to context and information.
    • Fill in the other elements.
  • Evaluation by the standards
    • Here you will need to mention a specific audience other than yourself.
    • It may be helpful to interview persons who are part of that audience.
    • Do not talk about people in general.
• Conclusion
  • It is essential to achieve "metacognition" (WA 54) by answering some of the questions on the assignment sheet.

Now that you have checked the paper's organization, read it a second time. Then answer all of the following questions in a written comment (substantive answers, not yes/no answers: state why you think what you think about your classmate's paper).  Obviously, if you see problems or shortcomings, you should explain and offer suggestions.

Precision: What is the paper's focused topic?  (It should be a cultural artifact.) Does the body of the paper address all parts of the thesis? Does the thesis include the focused topic and conform to the formula in the assignment sheet? Does it include a "because" clause? Does the "because" clause include a specific concept (e.g., one from Bordo's chapter)?

Depth: Does the paper do "10 on 1"? Does it say more about less? Or is there too much BREADTH ("1 on 10")? What more does the author need to say about the focused topic? Every aspect of it should be discussed in the paper.

Clarity:  Does the author apply the elements to his/her cultural artifact in such a way that you, as a more casual viewer/listener, can understand what it is about? In other words, is it CLEAR to you what the author is talking about? What more do you need to know?

Sufficiency:  The quality of being ENOUGH.

• Does the paper discuss the focused topic in every par.?  Where might the author helpfully build in further references?

• Regarding introduction, analysis, evaluation, and conclusion, is there enough development in each of these sections?  Does the background section first discuss/describe the focused topic (i.e., present information) and then apply the other elements to it?

• Is there enough emphasis on the audience that the author selected? Does the author demonstrate the artifact's effectiveness (or lack thereof) for that audience? Has the author done some research on that audience? Overly general statements about the audience should be avoided. (Note: Research can just be talking to people in the ad's intended audience.)

• Does the paper's conclusion provide enough self-reflection?  Has the author reflected on the thinking that s/he has done in this paper?

Accuracy:  Do arguments support the thesis? How could support be improved? In other words, does the paper make true/reasonable claims about the focused topic?

Importance/relevance: Does the paper make a suitable connection to a concept in Bordo and/or Berger? Is that connection sufficiently developed? Does the paper say something about a quotation from Bordo or Berger or just insert it and move on? Does the paper quote and discuss the relevance of something from Nosich's book? Is the textual connection in the thesis statement? (It really ought to be.)

WHAT MORE CAN BE SAID?  WHAT ERRORS/PROBLEMS DID YOU DETECT?  DOES THE PAPER FULFILL THE ASSIGNMENT?

• For example, does the paper include at least one SEE-I?

• Is the Works Cited list done properly?

Bordo, Susan. "Beauty (Re)discovers the Male Body." Ways of Reading:

An Anthology for Writers. Ed. David Bartholomae and Anthony

Petrosky. 9th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 189-233.

Print.

Nosich, Gerald M. Learning To Think Things Through: A Guide to

Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum. 4th ed. Boston:

Pearson Education, 2012. Print.