Stage II and Gillam

A good example of constructive peer review advice! :D

 Today in class we'll be exchanging drafts of Stage II and, again, revisiting our peer review process. You'll need 3 copies of your draft AND the Gillam article.

Before we jump into that, I'd like to briefly go over how to do a Works Cited page, since a lot of you all had questions about this part of the assignment. If, after our discussion in class, things still don't quite add up, here is a good resource:

The Owl

Studio Work:

After reading the Gillam article, respond to the following questions. Use your groups as resources and discuss these, though each person will need to turn in their own before they leave the studio this afternoon.

1.     What are “higher level thinking skills?” How does Gillam claim peer response reinforces this? Do you agree? Why or why not? Try to give examples from your own experiences with peer review in your response.

2.     What does Gillam mean by “vernacular?” In the past, what are some things teachers/professors have said about your writing? How is this similar/different from the feedback you get from your peers? Which do you think is more helpful, and why?

3.     What is “metacognition?” How does peer review reinforce this? Thinking about the other readings we’ve had so far, when else might we use metacognition? What have our other authors had to say about it (perhaps, though, using different terms)? 

4. Gillam's basic argument is that peer review helps the reviewer just as much (if not more) than the person receiving the critique. Can you think of any OTHER ways giving feedback helps YOU as a writer? Reflect on the feedback you've given your peers so far. If you feel like giving feedback doesn't help you as a writer, what do you think you (or we as a class) can do differently to make it a beneficial process for everyone involved. 

 Homework:

Read your partners' essays and prepare critiques for them. You may want to focus on the following discussion questions, as they're what I'll be looking at while grading. 

 1. What claim is the author making about the construct? Is the claim clear from the context of the paper (Remember -- a claim can be like a hypothesis, your particular theory about a construct)?

2. How does the author incorporate inquiry into their investigation? If using primary research, how does the author connect the research back to his/her claim (to prove, support, or disprove). If using secondary research, how do the quotes, paraphrases and discussions included connect back to the chosen claim?

3. How does the essay exist within the discourse we've been having in class and in the readings? What original thought/analysis does it add to the greater conversations going on around us?

4. Who was the essay written for? What is its purpose? Are these questions answered by the context of the essay? If not, indicate areas where the author could clarify these questions for you as a reader.

Please bring 2 copies of each critique you write to class on WEDNESDAY to be prepared for our peer review.