What we're working on here: You are to receive feedback on your work from other readers in the class and to provide feedback to other writers. Often, writing feels like a solitary exercise — especially in academic contexts, where you write for a single reader, the course's instructor. But writing is inherently a social activity, as we discussed when we talked about the syllabus, and this exercise is designed to encourage you to think about your peers in class as an audience for your writing, as well. At the same time, you will be expected to provide helpful, thoughtful feedback to other members of the class on their writing assignments. Your main goals throughout any peer-feedback exercise in this class should be (a) to provide feedback that helps the person whose writing you're reading to improve that piece of writing and (b) to pay close attention to the way that other readers in the class encounter your own writing.
Notes and caveats: These guidelines are based on the criteria that we have discussed in class. They are subject to change as the quarter progresses; like any collaborative document, they are a work in progress, and I welcome suggestions from you on how to improve them. You should check the course website every so often to see what changes have been made. I will announce changes to this document on the course Twitter stream and will pass out copies of revised versions in class before peer-review exercises.
Extra-credit opportunity: You may only take this opportunity during the time between when a peer-review exercise finishes for a writing project (though not for peer review for the final course portfolio) and midnight on the day before our next class meets. To take advantage of this opportunity, send me an email proposing at least one substantial, productive change to these guidelines and explaining why you think it is a helpful change. If I agree with you that it is likely to be productive, then I will ask the class as a whole whether they wish to accept it as a proposed change. If the general consensus of the class is that the change should be made, I will incorporate your feedback into these guidelines, and will give you a 2% bonus to your overall grade for the course. Whether or not your changes are accepted, you may only submit two such peer-review-guideline-change proposals during the quarter.
Realize that providing additional examples to help flesh out the lists below is helpful, but is not the same thing as making substantial improvements to the criteria themselves. For this reason, if your feedback is limited to providing additional examples, you should provide several, and they should be genuinely useful. If I decide to incorporate them, I will do so without submitting them to the class for evaluation, and you will get a bonus of 1% (instead of 2%) to your total course grade. This still counts as one of your two opportunities to get extra credit in this way this quarter.
You should be aware that there are limitations to how much extra credit you can receive and how extra credit can affect your grade; see the extra-credit opportunities document for details.
I also reserve the right to make changes to these guidelines on my own, though I would much prefer that proposals for changes come from you.
Guidelines for evaluating the work of others
Do
Provide thoughtful, helpful feedback on the writing of each person whose work you see.
Provide concrete suggestions when possible.
Examples:
provide specific suggestions for rephrasing an awkward phrase, instead of just pointing out that it's awkward.
talking about how to expand a section in which the logic or other structural elements feel skimpy, instead of just saying that it needs expansion.
explaining alternatives for repeated words that you think occur too often.
However, even if you cannot provide concrete suggestions for improvement, it can still be helpful to point to a place where you are experiencing awkwardness or difficulty in someone else's writing.
Try to provide explicit feedback about what does and does not work.
Focus on larger-scale concerns about the piece of writing, rather than being overly attentive to smaller-scale concerns, such as grammar or mechanics.
Try to be specific about degrees to which something does or doesn't work for you, as a reader, so that the writer of the piece can prioritize the feedback they receive.
Be specific about the actual context of your comments: which part(s) of the piece do they apply to?
Understand that your suggestions are suggestions, and that the final decision for making changes rests with the person whose piece of writing it is.
Remember that the person whose work your reading is a person, and that s/he quite likely put a lot of effort into the piece you're reading.
This doesn't mean that you should flatter the piece's writer or pander to him/her, because this would mean that you weren't giving useful feedback. But it does mean that you should talk specifically about the writing, not about the writer, and that you should be polite and thoughtful in terms of how you give your feedback.
Remember that you are reading a draft of a piece that will be revised at least once more before your instructor sees it, and possibly again after that. Try to avoid assuming that this is a finalized piece that is intended for publication in a prestigious publication forum — remember that you're looking at a piece that someone is actively seeking help on improving.
Avoid
Writing on someone else's paper. Never write on anyone else's paper during peer review for any reason. The person whose work you're responding to may write on their own paper, but you need to explain your thoughts about their writing verbally.
Personally criticizing the writer of the piece. Focus your comments on how the writing could be improved, not on your assessment of the person who produced that piece of writing.
Just expressing an opinion, or just disagreeing with the writer's opinion. I expect that you will be able to provide useful feedback even on pieces that you don't personally like, just as I expect that you will be able to provide suggestions for improvement even when you do like the piece.
Giving only positive feedback. While you should be polite and thoughtful of the writer's feelings, the point is not simply to build his/her ego; the point is to help him or her make the piece better.
Making vaguely evaluative comments, like This is awkward or I disagree. Your focus should not be on deciding whether the piece of writing is good or bad; your focus should be on how it could be better than it currently is.
Focusing on lower-order concerns, such as grammar or mechanics, unless the person whose work you're reading explicitly says that they want that kind of feedback. The piece of writing that you're reading is a draft, and just proofreading for mechanical problems is likely not to be helpful, because the underlying structures will quite likely change during final edits, and then the piece would need to be proofread again.
Bludgeoning, being heavy-handed, or trying to take over someone else's work. Remember that all of the the final decisions about the piece of writing you're reading are the responsibility of the person writing the paper. Your role is to provide helpful suggestions, not to dictate mandatory changes.
Giving entirely negative feedback. Spend at least a bit of time talking about what is working in the piece you're looking at, because this helps the person whose work you're reading to know what strengths they can play to as they develop as writers.
Guidelines for when your own work is being evaluated
Do
Be clear to anyone who is about to read your work what kind of feedback will be most helpful to you.
Take notes on the feedback that other people provide to you. You will be expected to turn these notes in with your WP and with your final course portfolio. You may want to take notes directly on your own draft, or you may want to take notes on another sheet of paper or on an electronic writing device; all of these are acceptable.
Assume that other people in the class are making a good-faith effort to help you, unless they prove that this is not the case beyond a reasonable doubt. (And if this happens, let me know.)
Ask clarifying questions if what someone is saying is unclear to you, or if you need more information or more specific suggestions about how to improve something. (But note what the next section says about speaking about your own work otherwise.)
Avoid
Defending your own work, or otherwise explaining it or speaking about it at all, except if the feedback you are getting is unclear to you. Don't defend your own work: the purpose of this exercise is to see what other people think about the piece as it stands.
If you need to clarify something to your readers in this exercise, there is a good chance that this means that you should clarify it in your writing. Remember that, when you produce a piece of writing, your ideas should be clear even if you're not standing next to the person reading it.
Taking suggestions for improvement personally. Everyone has something to learn about writing, both from me and from his or her peers.