Peer Review?

Follow the PQP format! :-)

Peer review can be tricky, but we'll be practicing how to do it effectively in class today in preparation for our "real" peer review session on Monday. In class today, we'll be reading the NEUBERT article.

Here is your group discussion questions for today (turned in at the end of 1st period):

How would Neubert and McNelis define "peer review?" What is their PQP method? Do you think it's useful for our class setting? Why or why not?

Studio Work:

What is peer review?

In groups, read the Writing Doesn't Happen in a Vacuum essay. On your tables, work together to write 3 PRAISES, 3 QUESTIONS and 3 POLISHES. Be sure to keep your comments detailed and specific.

Then, swap tables with another group. Review the feedback they provided and label it either VAGUE, GENERAL BUT HELPFUL, or SPECIFIC.

Return to your table and revise any VAGUE or GENERAL BUT HELPFUL comments.

Due before you leave the studio today:

In your own words, define "Peer Review." What do you think is the key to a successful peer review experience? What can we do as a class to ensure that our session next week is a productive one? What can you do as a student to provide helpful feedback?

HOMEWORK:

Write a PQP critique of each of your partners' drafts. Each critique should be roughly 1/2 page long (typed, double spaced). Please bring 2 copies of your critiques to class on Monday (one for your partner, and one to turn in to the instructor).

Also, begin reading FLOWER (be sure to bring it to class on Monday). You don't need to finish it over the weekend, but do begin reading it as we'll have a quiz next Wednesday.
 
Have a suggestion or comment about peer review? Feel free to post it in the comments section below. If you write something insightful, you may receive extra credit!