Peer Review on the Overhead Screen
Download a Word Version

Summary

Each student writes a rough draft of a five-page paper. (In the class I observed, the paper was devoted to the “Application of Technical Terms and Analysis,” using Mary Louise Pratt’s transcribed lecture, “Arts of the Contact Zone.” This exercise could be done with any essay, however.) In groups of three, students exchange their drafts by email, forwarding one copy to the instructor. Students read the drafts and email letters to each author (and the instructor) criticizing the papers. In class, the instructor reviews the prompt for the assignment, then notes common errors or problems he saw in the drafts. Next, he chooses one student willing to read her draft aloud as the class follows along. The two students who emailed her their criticisms of the draft present those criticisms to the class, and a discussion of the draft’s merits follows. The instructor wraps up the discussion with a few of his own suggestions for improving the paper.

LESSON PLAN

Background

Each student writes a rough draft of a five-page paper on the “Application of Technical Terms and Analysis.” In groups of three, students exchange their drafts by email, forwarding one copy to the instructor. Students read the drafts and email letters to each author criticizing the papers, using as a guideline “Workshop Goals and Logistics.”

Step 1: The Instructor Reviews the Prompts for the Assignments

After pulling down the overhead screen and turning on the projector, the instructor drags the assignment prompt for “Application of Technical Terms and Analysis” to the desktop and opens it for the class to see. He reads the prompt aloud. Then, in a blank Word document on screen, he types some of the common problems he’s seen in the rough drafts emailed to him.

In the class I observed, the instructor noted two typical approaches to the prompt in terms of the papers’ overall structures. He discussed the merits of each approach, suggesting that one might require more work in order to develop an argument, while the other might allow students to dig deeper. Students then asked a few questions about the invididual approaches they took. Next, the instructor addressed the scope of the thesis statements he reviewed. Again, he noted two general approaches that kept appearing over and over, focusing on a less effective type of thesis that was merely descriptive. He pointed out that the assignment asks for analysis as well.

Before moving on to the presentation, the instructor next reviews the prompt for the letters students sent to each other critiquing their drafts. He drags the assignment prompt “Workshop Goals and Logistics” from the pickup folder to the desktop, opens it, and reads it. He can use this opportunity to point out inadequacies in the letters of critique circulated by the students so far (some of them being too short, for example).

Step 2: A Student Reads Her Paper Aloud

Now that the instructor has reviewed the assignment prompts and talked about ineffective aspects of students responses to the assignment so far, he moves on to the main part of the class: a presentation of a student’s paper.

He says: “We’ll look at some essays now and, and as we examine these two rough drafts and peer reviews, let’s pay particularly close attention to the structure of the arguments and the scope of their thesis statements, making sure that the thesis is more than just descriptive.”

Using Remote Desktop, the instructor selects and observes his volunteer student’s rough draft (open on her own computer). He asks that the rest of the class follow along on the overhead screen as she reads her essay aloud, jotting down comments with a pen or opening a Word document on their computers and typing notes.

Tip: As the volunteer reads aloud, students might want to follow along on their own computers (rather than reading from the overhead screen). The instructor might use the share command in Remote Desktop, placing the student’s draft on everyone’s screen.

 

Step 3: Two Students Present Their Criticism of the Paper

After the volunteer student has finished reading her paper aloud, the instructor suggests she use the comment function in Word to enter comments into her draft as she hears them from other students. Alternatively, she could type out the comments in a Word document.

The instructor says: “Now let’s have the two people who critiqued her paper present their criticisms.”

The students referred to the letters of critique they emailed the volunteer. In the class I observed, the first student spoke to the class in very general terms, and referred to a few grammatical errors. The second student more adeptly zoomed in on one of the two issues the instructor had brought up: argument structure. She identified which structural approach the volunteer had taken, and argued that it worked fine.

Other students weren’t so convinced, and they began to chime in with their own commentary on the paper, noting what they liked and did not like. The instructor prompted them to consider the analytical scope of the thesis (one of the two main areas he addressed earlier in reviewing the assignment prompts). First, he asked students to identify the thesis. He highlighted the thesis on the overhead screen once they did. Students suggested that it was vague, or merely descriptive. The instructor solicited further input in order to pin down the specific weak points, and suggested there might be specifics mentioned in the paper itself which could be plugged in here.

Step 4: The Instructor Adds a Few Final Comments on the Paper

Now that the critique are finished in the class has discussed the presented draft, the instructor can end by reading aloud his overall criticisms of the volunteered student number paper, reaffirming at least one other student’s criticism or praise.