Peer review instructions
- Sign into Canvas, go to Assignments, and click the Analysis 1 assignment. In the Submission Details box, click the student name under Assigned Peer Reviews. Click the View Feedback link to the right of the uploaded paper link (not the link to the paper itself). That will open Crocodoc preview.
- You’ll see Crocodoc tools up at the top: Magnifying glass to zoom in or out, a Comment icon to leave various sorts of comments on the page, a download icon to download this paper (you’ll do this at the end), and a page arrow to scroll up or down on the page.
- Read the paper through once very closely, using the Crocodoc tools to quickly note surface errors, make at least a few specific comments, or offer organizational suggestions, but don’t spend a great deal of time editing your partner’s paper.
- ((If there is no View Feedback link, you’ll need to download the paper, open it in Word, and use the Review tools to leave your feedback on the paper. Save the paper on your desktop when you’re finished, and click the Upload File link on canvas (same place you downloaded the paper), select your document, and upload. Hit save.))
- 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 use the rubric, click Show Rubric to open it, and then for each entry, click View Longer Description to see the specific prompts you should consider in the accompanying text box. Each time you add comments to a comment field, go to the bottom of the rubric and click SAVE. If you don’t click save before you close the rubric, you’ll lose your comments.
Download a copy of your review
To be certain your work doesn’t evaporate into the ether, go to the Crocodoc toolbar at the top of your peer’s paper, and hit the download icon. Select “download the annotated pdf.” Save the file to your desktop, and email it to yourself.
When you’re finished, you may go. 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). Before class next time, revise your paper and upload a CLEAN copy to the same place you uploaded the peer review version (I will see both versions) by classtime on T, Oct 4.
RUBRIC Items for Analysis 1
|Ethos: There should be a thorough identification and analysis of the ways the author establishes his or her credibility, artistically and inartistically. If that’s the case, note the most impressive aspect of ethos analysis. If not, help out.||Comments||1.0 pts|
|Pathos: There should be a thorough identification and analysis of the author’s appeals to the audience’s emotions, including which emotions are evoked and how they are evoked. If that’s the case, note the most impressive aspect of pathetic analysis. If not, help out.||Comments||2.0 pts|
|Logos: There should be a thorough identification and analysis of the author’s logical appeals, including identification of the formal topic(s) and the supporting and main stases. If that’s the case, note the most impressive aspect of logical analysis. If not, help out.||Comments||2.0 pts|
|audience/exigency/type/context: There should be a strong and specific analysis of one of the following: Audience, exigency, type of discourse, and cultural/historical context? If that’s the case, explain and note the most impressive aspects of it. If not, help out.||Comments||1.0 pts|
|Writing: This piece should be written effectively and coherently with very few grammatical errors, and it should conclude with a well-stated appreciation of the most compelling aspect of the artifact and with a rebuttal point that the artifact should probably have included. If that’s not the case, don’t spend a lot of time correcting, but do note repetitive errors and offer concrete feedback where possible. If the conclusion needs help, please offer it.||Comments||2.0 pts|
|What works well? Describe what you think works very well in this analysis.||Comments||0.0 pts|
|What needs most work? Describe what you think needs the most work in this analysis.||Comments||0.0 pts|
|Meme: The accompanying meme is pasted into the analysis and both accurately represents the main claim of the original artifact and is well-executed, compelling, and self-contained enough to stand on its own on some social media site.||Comments||1.0 pts|
|Purpose: There should be a thorough and detailed description of the author’s apparent purpose, what specific action or attitude s/he hopes to prompt in the audience. If that’s not the case, note it.||Comments||1.0 pts|
|Total Points: 10.0|