on peer review

9
Revision: Peer Review

Upload: amanda-preston

Post on 07-Aug-2015

19 views

Category:

Education


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: On Peer Review

Revision: Peer Review

Page 2: On Peer Review

Why Peer Review?

There is no such thing as good writing, only good rewriting.

We often miss our own mistakes because we know what we mean to say, and thus tend to gloss over errors in grammar/syntax, content, cohesion, continuity, and clarity.

Peer review gives a writer the chance to test out the effectiveness of his or her essay on others, and receive critical feedback to improve a text before it is published or graded.

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITHTHE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.

Page 3: On Peer Review

Authorial Credibility

Recall the rhetorical situation. Every part of a text factors in to its effectiveness, including:• Appearance

(format)• Content (argument

and support)• Context (exigence

and audience)Typographical errors diminish an author’s ethos, suggesting to the reader that he could not bother to revise his own work.

If the author doesn’t care, why should the reader?

Page 4: On Peer Review

The Reader Shouldn’t have to Work for It

And remember: If it’s not on the page, it’s not there. The reader can’t read your mind.

Page 5: On Peer Review

Textual Clarity

Writing should be clear, informative, and logical.

It’s more important that the information is direct and understandable than elaborately stated. Don’t write in essayese. Get to the point.

Sentences that are longer than three lines should be broken into two sentences. Readers have limited attention spans; don’t overburden their

thoughts with wordy sentences. Avoid appositives: don’t separate the subject from the action,

or the action from the object. Avoid unnecessary adjectives or verbosity (fluff filler). Avoid unnecessary redundancy: vary sentence style and

words. Avoid overly opinionated statements: aim for objectivity. Avoid passive voice: keep it active.

Page 6: On Peer Review

Contextual Cohesion

The rhetorical situation should be clear. Look for: The author’s voice—it should connote authentic

interest, credibility and concern for the subject. The subject—it should be one that is arguable and has

apparent rhetorical exigence. The audience—it should be specific and addressed,

whether directly or implicitly.

The essay should also be well-formatted, cited, and professional in tone and appearance. Imagine the essay is a college entrance exam; is it

dressed the part (decorum)?

Page 7: On Peer Review

Reverse Outline

In the margins of the paper, write the paragraph topics to see if they support the thesis and develop logically.

Look for paragraph arrangement: Are the paragraphs placed in an sensible order? Are any points missing or are any topics irrelevant? Do the topics build in intensity and persuasiveness?

Look for transitions between paragraphs to make sure information flows from topic to topic. Does the author abruptly shift between supporting

claims? Can you move logically from topic to topic?

Page 8: On Peer Review

Notate Textual Issues

Mark it up— Well-educated and intelligent

individuals want critical feedback to improve their work.

Don’t be lazy— The more you correct, suggest,

notice, and comment, the more you are helping the writer.

Be constructively critical— Don’t insult or speak down to

the writer, but also don’t avoid giving useful advice just to be nice.

Page 9: On Peer Review

Assignment: Notations & Worksheet

Rough drafts should be notated for: Grammar/syntax Mechanics Continuity, clarity, focus

Worksheets should be filled out for each essay you review.

Due @ the beginning of class: return for revision.