Annotating the Draft
1). All critiques, whether verbal or written, will be respectful and constructive.
2). Read draft once straight through with your pen down.
3). Underline Thesis: Is it clear, direct, focused, and logical? Are there three claims about the problem or solution that direct the topic and reader?
4). Praise: read the draft once more and make shorthand comments for things that work well
a). Use checkmarks in the margins for ideas you like, i.e. content
b). Underline passages that you find well-written, i.e. form (think: especially clear writing, well-contextualized, good quotation-usage, etc.)
5). Critique: return to areas that were challenging to you as a reader and consider why
a). Content-based confusion: place a question mark in the margin
b). Larger formal construction issues, such as whole sentences, ½ sentences, phrases, etc.: place brackets around the area
c). Box transitional phrases & circle pointing words
d). Is Metacommentary occurring? Write “MC” in margins where elaboration is necessary
e). Are they employing the ICE Method of quote integration: Introduce, Cite, Explain?
6). Do they have a working title, refutation paragraph, and reference page? If not, please remind them of this stuff, and help them brainstorm a title!
Letter of Analysis
1). Using your annotations, write a brief letter to your peer, which you will read to them.
2). Indicate at least two things that worked well in the draft.
3). Directly identify and quote their thesis–is it clear? Located in the right place
4). What did you struggle to understand about the essay? Be respectful and constructive
Discussion
1). Go in alphabetical order
2). Person being workshopped sits silently, taking notes. Reserve your comments and questions until the two are finished!
3). Two reviewers: Read your letters aloud and discuss. What were some common strengths and weaknesses you found? What are some suggestions for your peer–specifics for improving these issues?
4). Thank each other!
