Peer Conferencing Worksheet
Overview and Directions: To help the writer seriously and thoughtfully revise
her or his paper, your comments need to be clear, specific, and detailed. Plan to spend about 45 minutes per
essay. (Don’t forget to do your
own!) If you find it takes only a few
minutes, reread the essay and try to respond more fully. Most of your comments will be recorded on a
separate sheet of paper or on the back of the essay; you will also make notes
in the text of the essay itself.
Keep in mind that general comments like “I like it—it’s good!” will be
of little use to the writer preparing to revise. For each comment you make on the items listed below, refer the
writer to the part of the essay that generated that particular response. For example: “Your thesis is stated strongly
on p. 1, but you seem to be making a different point at the bottom of p. 3” or
“You use a great quotation to support your claim in the third paragraph; you
need something equally powerful in the next paragraph to make your argument
truly convincing.” If something is
confusing or unclear, be as specific as possible about what confused you. (Was it the choice of words? An example or claim that comes out of
nowhere?) And, if possible, offer some
possibilities for revision.
The best papers will have the following features:
1.
Conceptual:
Read the paper through for a first impression, ignoring for the time being any
sentence level errors. How well does
the paper satisfy the demands of the assignment? Does it successfully summarize and evaluate Armstrong and
Tennenhouse’s argument? What aspects
of the essay could be expanded, condensed, clarified, cut, or otherwise
changed?
2.
Thesis: The
design of this assignment necessitates two thesis statements (one stating the
summary of the argument, the other stating an evaluative claim using one of the
four texts). Locate each of these thesis
statements (if you cannot find one, identify the implied thesis). For each, circle the key ideas. Then assess whether the two statements are
consistent with one another, and with the paper overall.
3.
Development and Support: Look at the quality and quantity of supporting
evidence in each paragraph. Note any
claims that are either unsupported or need further explanation. Does the writer explain specifically what
the quotation shows? Does the writer go
beyond superficial or shallow analysis?
If you see places where the evidence (or its relevance) is not fully
explained, identify them (give page and paragraph locations). Also, note places in which evidence is not
incorporated into the writer’s own sentences, but rather is left standing on
its own. Suggest possible revisions.
4.
Structuring: Underline the topic sentence of each
paragraph (note that it may not be the first sentence). Does the topic sentence in each body
paragraph clearly set out the main claim being argued? Does the topic sentence clearly relate to
the thesis? How can this aspect of the
essay be improved?
5.
Language:
Although you should strive to correct any repetitive grammar or usage errors
(try not to get hung up on circling every little typo or misplaced comma), I would
really like you to focus on any sentences that seem particularly wordy,
syntactically tangled, or just plain hard to follow. Put a question margin next to it to alert the writer.
6.
Summing Up:
The writer now should have plenty of ideas for how to improve the paper. The sheer amount of comments, however, may
be daunting. Since your job as peer
reviewer is to guide, not overwhelm, I would like you to prioritize your comments
by using the following questions:
a.
Identify the three
most important improvements to the paper that the writer can make, in order of
priority.
b. Identify
the two greatest strengths of the paper.
What should the writer strive to retain?
Please use these comments to form a plan for
revision. Your final packet should
include all drafts/comments.