Peer Editing of Research Paper

CRTW 201

Dr. Fike

The final draft of your paper, along with your other graded papers, is due on the last day of class in a file folder. Do not forget to send your research paper to turnitin.com.  Do not forget a comment sheet (available here:  http://faculty.winthrop.edu/fikem/Courses/CRTW%20201/CRTW%20201%20Comment%20Sheet.htm).

You must bring a full draft of your research paper in order to participate today.  Many of you have been excessively absent; now is not the time to rack up another absence.

This peer editing exercise involves reading and writing, not talking.  You are to work silently on classmates' papers until the big hand is on the 12.  It is not reasonable to cover more than two papers in these 60 minutes.  You may talk for the last 15, not before.  Engage your authors in discussion about your critique of their papers.

By writing answers to all of the questions below, use the standards to peer edit a classmate's paper.  Present your handwritten comments to your author(s) at the end of the hour. 

1.  If the thesis is right, half the battle is already won.  Therefore, begin by providing a response to the following bullets regarding the thesis:

• Precision:  Does the thesis include, and is it about, the focused topic?  If not, send up a red flag.
• Sufficiency:  Are all three parts about the focused topic?  Is there some mention of one or more standards here?
• Precision:  Does it follow the formula in the assignment sheet:  Although..., I will argue that...because...?
• Precision:  Is the although clause in a true opposition to the because clause?  Is it in a true opposition at least to the main clause?

2.  Sufficiency:  Does the paper have at least 4 sources?  Is the WC list in proper MLA format?

• One source should give details regarding the focused topic.
• One source should be in favor of the veracity of the (focused) topic.
• One should be against the veracity of the (focused) topic.
• One source should be Nosich.
• You may also need an additional source to flesh out the context in background 1. 
• Note:  "focused" is in parentheses here because, while you may not be able to find information on your focused topic, you certainly should be able to find information on the larger topic of which it is an example.  Here is an illustration:  There has probably been nothing published about the alleged Tillman Hall ghost(s), but plenty of material has been written about ghosts in general.

3.  Depth and breadth:  The paper should have two background sections.  One gives context for the focused topic; the other uses the elements to analyze the focused topic.

• Check for breadth in background 1 and depth in background 2.
• Background 1 needs to sketch the context (make statements about the topic); then it needs to summarize the focused topic.
• However, be sure that the paper does not try to present all previous thought about the topic in background 1 or to present a whole paragraph on each element in background 2.  For example, if your focused topic is one Charleston ghost, your context would be Charleston ghosts more generally, not ghosts since the beginning of time.
• Clarity:  Does the analysis in background 2 convey meaning adequately?  Have the elements been used accurately?  Can you suggest improvements?

4.  At least 3 of the standards should be present in the argument section. 

• Has the author sufficiently supported the thesis statement's main assertion?
• Has s/he build the argument in the because clause into the argument section?
• Is the researched evidence that supports the thesis relevant/important?
• Do you have any suggestions about how to make the argument stronger?
• Is the focused topic here?  Remember that the author is supposed to be arguing about the focused topic.

5.  Again, in light of the standards, do you believe that the author has sufficiently objected to the argument(s)?

• For example, if the argument is that the evidence for the veracity of the focused topic is sufficient, the objection really needs to suggest that it is not as sufficient as the argument maintains--and to state why.
• Is the researched evidence that supports the objection relevant/important?

6.  The replies, of course, must wrestle with the objections in order to affirm the arguments and, in turn, the thesis.  Do they?

7.  Conclusion:  This is the place where the author should mention the critical thinking traits.  The ones that seem particularly relevant are humility, courage, integrity, rationality, fair-mindedness, and autonomy.

• Does the author address his/her impediments, background stories, biases, filters?  If not, do you believe that there is a blind spot here?
• Do you have the sense that the author gave genuine credence to the opposition?  Or does the paper read as if the author's point of view predetermined the conclusion?
• Which traits does the author invoke here?  And do you agree with his/her self-reflection in terms of those traits?
• What more needs to be said?