Peer+and+Self+Critique+Checklist

Peer and Self Critique Checklist:

The following three page process allows you to self or peer critique a written argument. It is broken up purposefully to allow you time to focus on one specific aspect of the writing process at a time. First, you focus on the basics of the argment itself: claims, evidence, warrant, thesis and purpose -- has the author established his or her position effectively? Second, you focus on the arrangement of the argument: in what order has the author organized his or her points and evidence to guide the reader through the text towards the purpose? Third, you focus on style: do the language choices of the author engage and focus the audience's attention purposefully where the author wants?

Each step requires a preliminary reading of the text with no critique in order to grasp the gist of the argument. It is during the second and third reads that we mark up the text in order to suggest, alter, and question the author's decisions.

=Peer Editing – Multi-Step Process=

Intro: Importance of editing, comparison with typical student revising process. Need for objectivity both as critic and as subject.

(WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? IS IT PROVEN TO EXIST? WHAT ARE THE CONNECTIONS? ARE THEY CLEARLY INDICATED?)

First Round Focus: Clarity of argument – thesis, reasoning, evidence, purpose Directions:
 * 1) Read once – no pen.
 * 2) Read second time
 * Find and mark thesis – be aware of location in essay (beginning, middle, end) and that it may be more than one sentence.
 * Find and mark author’s reasoning – his or her own claims, analyses, opinions that develop the argument
 * Find and mark author’s evidence – facts, stats, quotes, etc.; are they cited properly?
 * Does this paper build to a meaningful purpose? Where does the student lay the foundation for that purpose and where does the student make it clear to the audience?
 * 1) Evaluate effectiveness of argument
 * Central argument – clarity of direction, wording, placement (if other than the beginning, does the author build to that point?)
 * Reasoning – Is it convincing? How does it appeal to the audience (logic, ethics, emotion). Is it cohesive in its development or are there large leaps?
 * Evidence – Is it credible and authoritative? Does it support the reasoning and the central argument? Is it varied? Is it smoothly incorporated?
 * Purpose – Is it clear? Is it relevant? Does the author properly build towards the purpose throughout the paper or does it get plopped down in the conclusion?

Second Round Focus: Arrangement and the Shaping of Information Directions:
 * 1) Read once – no pen
 * 2) Read second time with pen
 * Big picture analysis of arrangement: What categories does the argument break into? Box categories on the page.
 * Background information
 * Indication of problem
 * Proof problem exists
 * Reasons why problem matters (indication of purpose)
 * Solutions to the problem
 * Refutation (considering the opposing argument)
 * Content specific categories particular to essay
 * Evaluation: Is this an effective method of chunking information? Why? Does the argument seem to build to a purpose? As you read, do you have questions or doubts about the argument? Are they answered in some way? In a timely manner? Do you know what the argument is about early enough in the paper and does it guide you to a larger purpose?
 * 1) Read third time with pen
 * Analysis of strategy: what strategies is the author using to convey information? Mark in margin.
 * Cause and Effect
 * Comparison
 * Contrast
 * Definition
 * Division
 * Process/classification
 * Narrative/Anecdote
 * Listing
 * Analogy/parallel incident
 * Evaluation of strategies: If present, are they effective in building and proving the argument? If not present, where might they be helpful? Are there confusing or weak areas of the argument that might be benefited by a particular strategy?
 * 1) Refutation: Besides being present, is it fair and objective? Does it oversimplify the other side of the argument or does it present the other side truthfully?
 * 2) Appeals: How does the author appeal to the audience? Mark in margin where the author appeals to emotion, ethics or logic. Consider the individual arguments presented – how do they convince the audience?

Third Round Focus: The Writing – clarity of meaning, writing style, developing persona Directions:
 * 1) Read once – no pen
 * 2) Read second time with pen
 * Identify and mark effective writing.
 * Drawing emphasis: colon, dash, parentheses, repetition
 * Diction: concrete language, vibrant verbs, imagery, connotation
 * Syntax: sentence variety – simple, compound, complex (long, short, medium), rhetorical question, active voice (rather than passive voice)
 * Rhythm: repetition, alliteration, assonance
 * Figurative Language: metaphor/simile, analogy, personification, etc.
 * Irony
 * Identify and mark ineffective writing
 * Cliched images or phrases
 * Vague Diction: non-specific details – somewhere, anyone, good thing etc.
 * Choppy Sentences: no variety of length or sentence beginnings, unintentional fragments, unintentional run-ons
 * Spelling: watch the homonyms – there/their/they’re, etc.; common mistakes – loose/lose, etc.
 * Grammar: punctuation, mechanics.