Peer Editing of World View Paper

Peer Editing of World View Paper

Directions: On a separate piece of paper, answer all of the following questions. Try to avoid yes/no answers. Write something substantive. Take 25 or 30 minutes on each paper you read. When you finish with a paper, place it on the table under the white board. At the end of the hour, give your written comments to the papers' authors. You may have the last 15 minutes of class to talk. For the first 60, however, you must read and write, not talk. A draft is the price of admission to today's class. This sheet should serve as a guide for checking and revising your own paper as well.

1. Focused topic: What is the paper's focused topic? If the paper does not have a specific example, suggest one that the author might pursue. It is NOT okay to write about "society" in general.

2. Question: Write down the question that the paper is trying to answer. If that question does not contain the word "impediment," kindly suggest that the author move the paper in a different direction.

3. Thesis: Do the paper's "I will argue that" and its "because "clauses anticipate the argument section? Does the focused topic in the thesis get described/developed in background 1? Does the "although" clause oppose the other clauses and anticipate the objection section? Are all three clauses about the focused topic? Write a paragraph that provides your author with a close reading that verifies the quality of the thesis and points out any disconnections.

4. Background 1: Does the author need to say more about the focused topic? Is any information missing? What questions can you ask that would help the author develop this section?

5. Background 2: Does the author begin with the question at issue? Does s/he use the elements to analyze the focused topic or the topic? It is imperative that the analysis be of the focused topic. And does the writer correctly apply the elements? (Be especially careful about point of view: it does not mean "opinion." See Nosich.)

6. Argumentation: Is the author arguing for the presence or absence of an intellectual impediment in connection with a focused topic? Remember that this is not a paper about one's world view but about the thinking process that led up to it.

7. Objections: Do the objections object to the arguments in the previous section? If not, what revisions would you suggest? This is tricky. The arguments justify the author's claim about an impediment and do so regarding a focused topic. The objections must counter those arguments while still talking about the focused topic.

8. Replies: This section replies to objections in order to reaffirm the arguments--again, in terms of the focused topic. Does it properly do this?

9. Conclusion: Now that the paper has argued for the presence of an impediment in connection with a focused topic, the conclusion should explore whether the author's world view needs any adjustments. Does the paper do this? If not, how might you suggest that the author develop the conclusion? OR: If the author argued for the absence of an impediment, how might the conclusion suggest that, while this may be true, the author may still not be impediment-free in other areas? And is it possible to hold the right world view on the focused topic and still be subject to impediments? Does the author hold the "right" view for the wrong reason? Are you buying the author's claim about his/her impediment or lack thereof?

10. Nosich: Does the paper incorporate at least one quotation from N's book? If not, can you suggest one? If a quotation is present, does it appear in the right place? Could more be done with it?