Introduction

Below are two example paragraphs that we will practice critiquing as a group. In these examples I tried to adopt less common lines of argumentation, and I tried to write one example with A-level clarity and structure, and the other with C-level clarity and structure.

\(~\)

Ground Rules

Before starting our critiques, here are a few guidelines:

  1. Critiques are of the writing, they are not of the writer.

    • It’s often hard to detach yourself from your own writing. Similarly, it can be hard to critique the writing of a peer without feeling like you’re attacking their abilities. These feelings are natural, and you should be aware of them but try your best to move beyond them. It’s impossible to improve without being open to hearing about your weaknesses.

  2. With the previous point in mind, a thoughtful critique should address both strengths and weaknesses of the writing, not just the things that should be improved.

  3. Critiques should be backed up with specific details.

    • Statements like: “I liked this” or “this is unclear” are not helpful to the author
    • Statements like: “I liked how you brought up the US Census data here” or “your central thesis isn’t clear from your opening paragraph” are significantly more helpful.

  4. Review and editing are different. For today, our focus is to review the structure, clarity, and logic of an argument. You should review those items and not devote effort towards tasks like editing the paragraph for grammar, spelling, sentence structure, etc.

  5. As a recipient of peer review you should not feel obligated to follow all of your reviewer’s comments. There is no sole authority on what constitutes effective writing, and your peers are themselves learning how to become better writers. In many ways, the act of peer reviewing is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the feedback you receive. However, if several people are seeing similar issues with the same areas of your work you should consider making changes.

\(~\)

Practice

For the two example papers, review the following:

  1. Structure of the argument
    • Does the argument contain a central claim or thesis, supporting reasoning or rationale, and evidence?
    • Does the central claim appear early in the paragraph?
    • Are reasons/rationale given before their supporting evidence is provided?
  2. Clarity
    • Is the central claim or thesis explicitly stated and easily understood?
    • Do the reasons and rationale provided directly relate to the central claim? Are there any logical steps that are missing?
    • Is the evidence presented clearly linked to reasons and rationale? Is any of the evidence being misinterpreted? Is conflicting evidence being ignored?
    • Does the paragraph contain superfluous or unnecessary information that detracts from the argument?

There may be other things that you’d like to address, but today we’ll focus on these two components.

\(~\)

Peer Review

Similar to what we did with the example papers, review the structure and clarity of your partner’s work. Aim to provide 3-6 thoughtful comments across these components, with a good balance of things you liked and things you think need improvement.

\(~\)

Assignment

By next Tuesday (9/5), submit a single document via P-web containing the following:

  1. A revised version of your paragraph that incorporates changes based upon what you learned in today’s activity. As a reminder, you do not need to use all (or even any) of the changes suggested by your peer reviewer. Nevertheless, you should be able to make some positive changes to the structure and clarity of your work after today.
  2. Beneath your revised paragraph, write a 3-4 sentence reflection describing the changes you made with a focus on why you made them (remembering that you do not need to use your peer reviewer’s feedback if you do not believe it will improve your writing).