Draft Peer Review
Do the review in tandem: that is take turns doing each step
1. Read your partner’s draft essay out loud to him or her
2. Read your partner’s draft essay again, silently
3. and briefly answer the following questions, going through the list in turn.
The Gut Reaction
1. Write down, in two words, two positive reactions about the paper (for example, “smart”; “clear”; “precise”; “thoughtful”; “provocative”; “crepuscular”)
2. Write down, in two words, two negative reactions about the thesis (for example, “confusing”; “vague”; “illogical”; “spelling”; “grammar” )
Requirements: The following lists the assignment requirements. Identify each in the partner’s paper. Make any comments you have in the space provided – for example: “I can’t find this” or “I’m not sure the in text citation is correct” or “the dictionary definition doesn’t seem to match the meaning in the cited quotation” etc. (Don’t show your answers to the writer until step 5)
Did the writer:
1. Introduce each of the elements of the rhetorical situation asked for: kairos, exigence, audience.
2. Analyze in detail at least two of the elements? Which ones?
3. “An exigence is a problem that can be resolved through discourse.” It is not merely the timing; it is the factor or factors that motivate the rhetor to enter the conversation. Does this paper clearly identify the exigence that motivated Coates to respond?
4. Kairos is timing of the rhetorical act and timing in the rhetorical act. OF THE ACT: Does the paper identify the kairos OF the act?
IN THE ACT: Does the paper consider how Coates develops the kairos IN his rhetorical act? What are the limits? What are the opportunities? NOTE: significant kairotic moments usually occur at points of transition in a rhetorical act, and at its climax
5. Audience: Does the paper make a clear distinction between the intended audience and the real audience? (NOTE: In Coates’s piece, do the notions of ostensible audience and intended audience seem to collapse into each other?)
6. Introduction and conclusion: Is the introduction interesting? Does it waste time on more or less useless general information or bland platitudes, or does it get right to work? Can you identify the thesis statement and its C-S-C (context-subject-claim)? Is the conclusion merely a restatement of the introduction? Or does it reflect the fact that both writer and reader have been engaged in a discourse, and that something may have been discovered along the way?
7. Invention and Arrangement: Are the arguments made in the paper sound? Are they supported by direct evidence from Coates’s text? Do the arguments ever slip into unsubstantiated claims? Is the paper arranged logically, with transitions?