English 4371: Cultural Encounters in Early America Fall 2005

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:

• With respect to overall conception: cogent analysis, shows command of interpretive and conceptual tasks required by assignment and course materials: ideas original, often insightful, going beyond ideas discussed in lecture and class
• With respect to the thesis: controlled by clear, precise, well-defined thesis: is sophisticated in both statement and insight
• With respect to development and support of the argument: well-chosen examples; persuasive reasoning used to develop and support thesis consistently: uses quotations and citations effectively; causal connections between ideas are evident
• With respect to the structure: appropriate, clear and smooth transitions; arrangement of paragraphs seems particularly apt
• With respect to language (mechanics, usage, grammar): uses sophisticated sentences effectively; usually chooses words aptly; observes conventions of written English and manuscript format (including citation practices); makes few minor or technical errors.

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 adequately 1) summarize and explain the controversy between Jehlen and Hulme and 2) evaluate the persuasiveness of each argument, supporting that assessment through an analysis of George Best’s True Discourse? 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 an overview (or core) of the controversy, the other stating an evaluative claim based on an analysis of Best’s True Discourse). 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 any places where 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 mark in the 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.