Peer review instructions for Argument Paper
- Sign into Canvas, go to Assignments, and click the Argument Paper assignment. In the Submission Details box, click the student name under Assigned Peer Reviews.
- The paper will open, and you’ll see editing tools up at the top: + and – to zoom in or out, a pin icon to leave comments on a specific area of the text, a highlighter, etc.
- Read the paper through once very closely, using the tools to quickly note surface errors, make at least a few specific comments, and/or offer organizational suggestions, but don’t spend a great deal of time editing your partner’s paper.
- [[If you find that you can’t edit the page with these tools, click the “download file” icon at the far top RIGHT of the page, open and edit the file on your computer, save it, then upload it by clicking the paperclip icon under the rubric’s “Assignment Comments” section. ]]
- Spend the bulk of your time carefully responding to the conceptual prompts inside the rubric attached to this assignment, offering very specific and concrete suggestions wherever possible.
To open the rubric for use, click View Rubric. Each time you add comments, go all the way to the bottom of the rubric itself and click SAVE. If you don’t click save before you close the rubric, you’ll lose your comments. To be sure you don’t lose your comments, you could also copy and paste the rubric below to a document file to fill it in, then copy and paste your responses into the canvas rubric.
Download a copy of your review
To be certain your work doesn’t evaporate into the ether, download an annotated pdf of the paper by clicking the download icon at the upper LEFT of the screen. Save the file to your desktop—if you’re on a lab computer, email it to yourself.
To see the feedback left for you on your paper, go to the Assignment’s Submission Details and View Feedback (or check for an attached file). By class time on March 5, revise your paper and upload a CLEAN copy to the same place you uploaded the peer review version (I will see both versions).
|Claim: Is the main claim clear and persuasively articulated? If so, what is it? If not, what would you suggest? Does the author’s description of his/her claim in the self-analysis match up to what you read in the paper? If so note it, if not help.||This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.||3 pts|
|Purpose: What is the purpose of this argument? That is: what does the author want the audience to do, feel, or believe? Does the purpose come through clearly and match up with what the author says in the self-analysis? If not, what would you suggest?||This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.||2 pts|
|Evidence: What evidence is offered for this claim? Is it compelling and does it actually fit the claim being made? If so, why is it compelling? If not, what do you suggest?||This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.||3 pts|
|Documentation: Does this paper document sources accurately, both inside the text and at the end in a Works Cited page? If not, note it.||This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.||2 pts|
|Writing: Is this 3-4 page paper written coherently and persuasively, with very few grammatical or surface errors? If so, what do you like best about it? If not, what would you suggest needs the most work?||This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.||3 pts|
|Self-Analysis: Does the self-analysis contain all the requisite elements: main claim, purpose, most significant evidence? If not, what’s missing? And does the author’s description of each of these elements match up to what you actually read in the paper?||This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.||2 pts|
|Total Points: 15|