Presentation on theme: "Rules of Peer Editing It must be ABSOLUTELY SILENT! No talking, whispering, etc. Little distractions are annoyances while you are trying to give great."— Presentation transcript:
Rules of Peer Editing It must be ABSOLUTELY SILENT! No talking, whispering, etc. Little distractions are annoyances while you are trying to give great feedback. Take the TIME to critique. You do your writer a disservice if you dont give them constructive criticism about their writing. Analyze it, give suggestions, ask questions as to what confuses you. Write on their draft. Help them become a better writer. Write with a separate color of ink and write Edited By: Your Name at the top of the persons paper.
Peer Editing Introductions Does the attention getter/lead grab you? Is it interesting, relevant? Give suggestions to make it better. Does the person provide an adequate amount of background for the reader? Does it connect to the topic at hand (relevant?) Do they need to implement more facts/information? Do you get a strong sense of their argument? Does the person state the other side of the argument? Look at the thesis-does it tell you in one sentence the topic/opposing side (Although thesis…) the persons position+ the points of reasoning (at least 2)? Is it clear, direct, concise? Does it use parallel structure? Does it need different diction? Pay attention to fluency-fragments, run-ons, comma splices. Correct if needed. Does the paragraph flow well? Does it need stronger word choice? Do they use correct in text citation?...(Comp). Note other rules for in-text citation Is there anything else that needs to be addressed?
Peer Editing Body Paragraphs Underline the topic sentence. Does it say something? Does it advance the paragraph in some way? Is it the correct point in the thesis? Locate the pieces of evidence used to support the point being made-Are there three pieces (minimum) of evidence used? Are they in quotation marks (or are they paraphrased)? Are they cited correctly? If not please correct them- … (Smith 9). Or … (First 2). Or … (Smith). Or … (29). Or … (www.nra.org).www.nra.org Do the quotes (evidence) fit the argument being made or are they just random? Are there lead-ins to each quote (quote integration)? Does the author use signal phrases to integrate the quote rather than just dropping it in? Are there lead outs for each quote that 1) explain the quotes significance, tying it back to the main point of the paragraph? Are they discussing the quotes relevance on a deeper level? Do they follow the pattern of evidence(flow/cadence)? If not, ask for elaboration. Quotes should not stand alone. Is there a concluding sentence that sums up the main points of the paragraph possibly transitioning into the next idea? Underline the concluding sentence. Do they use effective transitions? Look for sound word choice, misuse personal pronouns (first and second person) and contractions(spell out), sentence fluency (fragments and run-ons), sentence beginning errors. Make sure to critique! Write questions or confusions down. Help to give your writer suggestions. Be thorough-spend time.