To receive additional feedback on your own writing
To have a sustained engagement with a peer’s writing (often, we can identify and articulate issues much more clearly in another person’s writing than in our own)
Step 1: Find a peer who is willing to go through this process with you. Let me know if you want to make an announcement to the class.
Step 2: Exchange copies of the draft that you plan to revise via email.
Step 3: Preliminary Reading (10 minutes)
Print out a copy of your peer’s paper
Read through the paper once, without making any marks. At this point, you are attempting to familiarize yourself with the author’s argument and the movement of the paper.
Step 4: Beginning to Annotate (20 minutes)
Now, read through the paper again, this time very slowly. Be aware of moments you find interesting and compelling, and moments when you are confused.
After each paragraph, summarize the main point in the margin.
Step 5: In-depth Annotation (40-60 minutes)
Now, return to the beginning of the paper. Annotate the following:
For the Introductory Paragraph:
Does the author set up a problem or tension? Underline the problem/tension, and write in the margin what it is.
Where is the thesis? Write “thesis” next to it. Is the argument specific? Circle any language in the thesis that could be more specific.
Does the thesis have tension in it? What is the tension? Write it in the margin.
For each Body Paragraph:
Star moments of close-reading that persuasively connect evidence and analysis
Put question marks next to moments of analysis that you do not follow (either because the wording is convoluted, or because the analysis does not have evidence supporting it). Write in the margin why you do not follow them.
Step 6: Style and Structure (30 minutes)
Look at the introductory sentence of each paragraph: does each introductory sentence transition from the previous paragraph, and foreground the point that this paragraph is making? Make a note in the margin next to any introductory sentence that does not do this (and say why).
Look at each time quotation is introduced. Does each introduction to quotation foreground the aspect of the quote that the author wants us to notice (as opposed to simply saying “x writes,”)? Make a note next to any quotation that does not do this.
Step 7: Drafting Your Response – The Big Picture (60 minutes)
Write down answers to the following questions. Your response should be at least 500 words.
How surprised are you by this argument? How does it change the way you read the text? If the argument itself doesn’t change the way you read the text, do certain moments of analysis stand out as surprising and thought provoking? How might the author make these moments more central to the overall argument?
What is the relationship between the thesis and the paper itself? Does the thesis seem like an accurate reflection of the evidence and body paragraphs that follow? Do any paragraphs feel like they don’t relate to the thesis? Do you think these paragraphs are irrelevant to the argument at hand, and the author should get rid of them, or do you see a way they might be related? How might the author revise his/her thesis/focus to account for this additional information?
Sketch out the progression of the argument. What is the overall movement of this paper? Keep in mind that the body paragraphs should not simply restate the thesis, but should move the argument forward.
Step 8: Crafting your Letter to the Writer (45 minutes)
Craft a letter to the writer, thinking of my feedback model to you. Your letter should be 600 words in length. Address the following questions (be honest, but generous and compassionate):
What is this paper doing well?
What do you think the author can work on? What aspects of the paper are most important to work on in revision? Be specific – point to pages and quotations that demonstrate what you are referring to. When possible, suggest how the author might make those aspects of the paper stronger.
What did you learn from this writer? This question is not meant to prompt you to restate how this author’s argument changed your understanding of the text, but how reviewing his/her paper helped you learn something about writing (structure, flow, use of evidence, etc.).
Step 9: Meet up! (30-60 minutes)
Meet in person with your peer for 30-60 minutes. Exchange and discuss your feedback. Whenever possible, brainstorm together about how the writer can work through these issues (i.e. think together about evidence, revising the thesis, the movement of the argument, etc.).
In order to be considered complete, you must turn into me:
Your annotated copy of your peer’s paper (I will return it to the writer after I see it)
Your 500-word answer to the “Big Picture” Questions (Step 7)
A copy of your 600-word letter with a signature from the writer indicating that you met in person and listing the date that you met.