Peer Review Instructions
Assignment I
English 320
Spring 2002

You're learning to be come expert readers and writers of discourse. These two go hand in hand, so here's how we'll use the peer review process to advance your expertise in both areas.

Note well: People who come to class without drafts to exchange will be left out of this process. We'll exchange papers during the first 10 minutes of class, so it's best to come prepared with your 3 copies in hand.

Note well: Write directly to the writer with your responses. I'm an important audience for you, but treat me as secondary audience, a listener to the dialogue between you and your classmates.

Peer review also gives you the opportunity to strengthen your expertise as a reader of discourse. It's not a matter of expertise to say "Huh?-I don't see what you mean here"; it is a matter of expertise to say "This stretch of text is not working because . . . ." If you plan to work in a position where you'll have some authority over produced texts (editor, administrator, teacher, writing team leader), you'll be analyzing writing and overseeing its revision, and you'll want to do so as an expert.

In this review, I'd like you to do a bit of both: a) respond as a generalist and b) analyze like a pro.

I. Reading as a generalist

1. Put your pencil down and read through the draft rather quickly. Then put the essay down and, without looking back at it, tell the writer (in writing) what you remember about what you read. You'll be letting the writer know what a casual reader would take away from the paper.

2. Pick up your pencil and read through the draft again a little more slowly, marking places where a) you are confused by the writing itself-just don't understand what's going on; b) would like to know more-find the writing too thin to be effective. Go lightly here.

II. Reading as a discourse analyst

Macro level
1. Name the stasis at which the argument seems to be operating (definition, classification, evaluation, proposal). Is this focus appropriate or should the writer shift emphasis? Why? Your call on stasis will depend on what you as a REPRESENTATIVE reader need/want to know.
2. Look for a LARGE classification scheme (p. 454-large scale parts). Name it for the writer. Where precisely does the writer lay out this scheme (forecasting, Lesson 1)? Where should she lay it out?
3. Is there a discernible thesis yet? If not, where precisely do you feel the NEED to hear the thesis clearly articulated? Or would you reposition a visible thesis? Why? Recall that the writer may not have come to grips with her thesis yet.
4. Does the paper seem to forecast and fulfill appropriately (Lesson 1 in the readings)? Reasons? Insights?
5. Complete this sentence: I would conclude from what you've written here that [fill in the blank]. (The writer probably hasn't written a conclusion yet, so don't look for one and don't believe the one you see.)

Micro level
1. Which techniques for organizing and developing ideas has the writer used (Lesson 4 p. 450)? Do these choices help you organize the writer's website data in productive ways?
2. Examine paragraphs for "point sentences." Recall that often point sentences are missing during drafting stages because the writer is not yet sure what the points are (p. 459). So just tell the writer whether you are spotting helpful point sentences or not. Name a good one if you see it.
3. Pick out ONE of the classification paragraphs and analyze it for unity and particulars (pp. 461-462).
4. Mark statements that count as "major transitions" (p. 465). Note: The technique of putting in "resting places" for readers (also known as metadiscourse) is useful in the writing process. Try placing informal "ok I'm done with that; now I'll start on this" statements into your own drafts. Later you can formalize these statements appropriately and make them work for you.
5. Analyze ONE paragraph for old/new contract (Lesson 7 p. 466).

--We'll work on introductions and conclusions (the last two lessons) next Tuesday.