Apparatus, Peer Review & Self Evaluation

March 1, 2007

Two activities have been integral to learning in this freshman writing course: peer reviews and self evaluations. Each serves to enhance learning. In particular, they facilitate conversations and help students engage actively in their own learning.

Early during the semester, I introduce and use accepted disciplinary language to prompt and facilitate discussions. I do this in part through the prompts I give to students for these activities. Later during the semester, students prompt discussions and almost every student participates, and they participate using a vocabulary and increasing understanding of rhetoric and writing.

Early during the semester we focus on substantive issues such as audience, purpose, and content and we revisit those throughout the semester. By giving these prompts during each unit, students come to demonstrate increased confidence and facility with their rhetorical skills. Moreover, these tools are designed to help writers stay in conversation with their work and each other and to help students to gain a better understanding of criteria against which people will assess their writing.

Peer Review Prompt

While I have used a variety of peer review prompts throughout the years, mostly synthesized from a variety of sources (with a nod to Illinois State University and their extensive course and TA development materials), for this assignment we relied heavily upon adaptations of review prompts in their textbook, Everything's an Argument (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, & Walters, 2007). These prompts connect directly to the units and reflect values of the discipline. I adapt these prompts based on my additional unit goals. The reviews for the substantive peer reviews of the Facebook paper are adapted as such:

Audience:

• Who are the readers? Does the writer target a general audience or a more specific one? Is the targeted audience the appropriate choice? What in the text leads you to your answer?
• Will readers understand the piece? How might readers respond to the piece as a whole or to specific parts? Will they read the whole piece? Where might they stop? Why? Will readers seriously consider the case? How might readers feel or what might they think while reading or after reading the piece? Will readers seriously consider the case? Will they agree? Identify specific places in the text that lead you to your answers.
• What in the writing shows that the writer clearly keeps readers in mind? What specific changes in the piece might help the writer tailor more specifically to the audience?
• What changes must the writer make to better communicate with the audience? What other changes could be made to help the writing better communicate with the audience?

Purpose:

• Where is the writing headed? Identify how can you tell from the writing. What is the thesis? Identify how and where the writing may need to have greater focus and direction.
• Where does the writing stay on track? Where does the writing go into new directions? How do you know?
• Is the writer trying to do too much? How so? Too little? How so? What needs to be changed to be more focused, developed, or to stay on track?
• Does the author seem to care about this topic or writing? How can you tell?

Effect:

• Given the purpose and thesis, what explanations, support, rationales, or connections would you expect to see in the piece? Why?
• Identify the main point of the piece. Identify the supporting claims of the piece. Is each claim or point clear?
• Identify where the writer supports the thesis and sub claims. Identify where the writer provides warrants or explanations for the claims. How does the writer qualify the argument, anticipate rebuttals, and provide backing?
• Identify any confusing parts and explain what was confusing. Where was there no explanation? Where was something missing? Was a sentence ambiguous or otherwise unclear? Was a wrong word used?
• Do you or the audience have different opinions? What needs to be changed in order to address different opinions in the piece?
• Identify any places where the writer said too much or explained too much about the subject or specific claims. Where was there information the audience did not need to have explained? How do you know that it was over explained? Where were there redundancies? What points were tangential? Explain your responses.
• Identify places where the writer did not explain enough. Was some information included (perhaps as claims) but not explained in enough detail (such as with support and warrants)? What should be changed, added, explained, supported, rationalized, and connected more fully?

In addition to discussions and peer reviews, which are external interactions, students also focus on internalizing what they've learned. Aside from informal reflections, students evaluate themselves after each paper using two prompts: the self-evaluation prompt below and the departmental grading standards (available in the earlier note (Course Description, Objectives, & Standards). After responding to the following prompt, students highlight, underline, or otherwise mark the level at which they think they meet each criterion as listed on the grading standards sheet. Then, about two-thirds of the way into the semester, students assess each other's papers according to the standards. Aside from helping students learn from each other, this approach also demonstrates if and how students understand and can apply the standards. By the end of the semester, students evaluate the writing of their peers in similar ways.

Complete the following about the paper you are about to turn in.

1. Check the following. I have:
• Included all related assignments, drafts, and peer reviews in addition to my revised paper.
• Arranged my materials with the oldest on the bottom and the newest on the top.
• Stapled multiple pages of any one assignment together.
• Clipped or otherwise bound all unit materials together (i.e., with a binder clip, in a folder, in an envelope).
• Revised my paper in substantive ways.
• Proofread and edited my final paper.
• Used at least three sources, one of which is from our textbook.
• Looked up how to and have, therefore, properly documented all of my sources:
• In text.
• In my works cited or bibliography.
2. Identify the following for your paper:
• Audience: Specific ways in which your claims, supports, and warrants are tailored for your audience.
• Purpose: Specific ways in which your claims, supports, and warrants are tailored for your purpose.
• Effect: Specific ways in which your claims, supports, and warrants are tailored for your effect.
• Situation: Specific ways in which your claims, supports, and warrants are tailored for your imagined or invoked writing situation.
3. Explain how you would revise your paper if you had one more week to do so (be realistic about how much time you could spend on it during that time).
4. Identify the following in your paper (you may write, underline, highlight, or otherwise clearly mark these directly on your paper):
• Thesis
• Your main claims that support your thesis
• Evidence for each main claim
• Explanations or warrants for each bit of evidence
• Explanations for how each bit of evidence and its warrants work toward supporting your thesis
• Potential rebuttals to your main claims
• Your responses to those rebuttals

The Facebook Papers Unit Prompt

February 28, 2007

Here is the paper prompt for the Facebook paper unit.

The Facebook Papers Unit

The day before a new unit begins, students can find the unit schedule and prompt in the learning management system. As is evident from the following prompt, this unit emphasizes making observations, collecting data, examining data, and then making claims, supports, and warrants about that data. The unit topic and discussions emphasize identity in social networking sites, particularly individual identity but with some consideration of cultural identity.

The Facebook Papers: Technology, Culture, and Identity

Date	Topic	In-Class	Due
M 3/6	Technology, persona, culture	Go over paper 3 assignment, conduct sample observations and analyses; Pre-survey; Assign peers	PEER REVIEWS Provide feedback to 3 of your peers’ papers (those posted above yours on the TRACS forum—if you are on the top, go to the bottom) following the guidelines given. Post your responses to the TRACS Forum by selecting “reply to message.” You will be able to see everyone’s papers plus everyone’s responses. Each review will count as a separate homework grade (in other words, this assignment counts as three grades). Be ready to discuss your responses in class.
M 3/11 - W 3/13	Spring Break
M 3/17	Observations, categorizing data	Wrap up paper 2; Read papers, Respond to arguments, Model peer responses; Documentation styles (Be sure to bring your SF book to class.)	READ Assigned peer Facebook, MySpace, or blog site HOMEWORK Keep a notebook of your observations of the peer site to whom you have been assigned. Identify what you see in the status updates, photos, in posts, in comments, and in other ways. Keep these observations over time. In other words, look at each day rather than all at once, or you will miss information. Do look back in time a bit, though, to see what you can identify. Be sure to document your observations: when did you see them, at what site, and at what part of the site? Be as specific as possible. We should be able to trace each observation you make, including time. Due Paper 2
W 3/19	Arguments of definition (formal, operational, example); definitional claims, reasons, warrants, matching definitions and claims, design and visuals	Discuss readings, prepare for papers (questions in EaA pages 236-239)	READ EaA: Chapter 8 HOMEWORK Alone or with up to two other people, complete one of the following from “Respond” on pages 240-241: #1, #2, or #3
M 3/24	Elements of argument, elements of definitions, peer reviews	Begin peer reviews; Look at evidence and look for fallacies	PAPER Typed paper draft “The Facebook Papers: Technology, Culture, Identity” posted to the appropriate TRACS forum. TBA: Visit to the library OR review of claims, evidence, and fallacies.
W 3/26	Revising	Ways to improve arguments of definition; Discussion of papers	READ EaA: pages 237-239; Your peers’ papers PEER REVIEWS Provide feedback to 3 of your peers’ papers (those posted above yours on the TRACS forum—if you are on the top, go to the bottom) following the guidelines given. Post your responses to the TRACS Forum by selecting “reply to message.” Note: You will be able to see everyone’s papers plus everyone’s responses. Each review will count as a separate homework grade.
M 3/31	Arguments of facts	Self evaluations; Wrap up paper 3; Introduce paper 4	PAPER Turn in your final paper, hard copy and on TRACS. For the hard copy, your most recent version should be on top and the oldest on the bottom. Your peer reviews and other versions should be in between. Staple each version together separately and then use a paperclip or binder clip to hole them all together. For the electronic copy in TRACS, post it as a reply to the appropriate forum.

Paper 3

During this unit, we examine technology, culture, and identity by analyzing Facebook, MySpace, and other such sites and through your own research. You will write a definitional argument that captures the persona of your peer and does so in part to argue about the use of such technologies in your culture. You will analyze an assigned web space of another person in this class.

Your main goal is to individually write a 900-1500 word definitional argument analyzing the persona or ethos of the person based only on their presence in that forum and connections from it. In other words, if we knew nothing about this person other than what appears in this space, how might you characterize this person? In concluding, use what you know or what you have researched about such spaces and college students’ uses of them in order to speculate about how this person’s persona or use of the space compares with others or about technology generally.

In terms of writing and communicating, this unit assumes that you can summarize and synthesize as well as use a clear thesis and topic sentences, as covered in 1310. This unit also builds upon the first unit about audience, purpose, effect, situation (as in the rhetorical situation), claims, supports, warrants, ethos, pathos, and logos. It builds upon the previous unit’s addition of qualifiers, rebuttals, backing, evaluating evidence, and documenting sources. It adds elements of definitional argument and fallacies.

Your paper must include and properly cite at least three different sources, at least one of which must be the site you are examining.
Because the sites can change at any moment, each time you go to the site, you need to write down the date and time that you visited it and what you saw. You will need to include this along with other regular citation information in your works cited page.

While it is not required, you might consider using at least one visual.

Ways to go About Your Analysis

As you begin, identify and list items you need to consider. If you are looking at Facebook, for example, you will consider photos, notes, wall posts, status messages, friends, away messages, the profile photo, group memberships, and so on. You should define this person based on the whole of what you can see, although you may find that some parts stand out and, thus, you choose to focus on these. You must first have the bigger picture to know what really stands out.

Answers to the following questions will help you write up your analysis. For any claims that you make, readers will expect support.

• Observe and describe in detail the scene. What do you see? Describe photographs. Quote messages. Who are this person’s friends? What connections do they have? What is posted? What has this person posted to other walls? To what groups does this person belong? Others? Be objective as possible (without introducing any cultural bias or personal interpretation).
• Identify patterns. What trends do you notice? In photographs? In comments? In groups? Other? How does the person seem to want to be seen? By friends? Family? Others?
• Speculate about what the patterns reveal. About relationships? About power, friendships, or other characteristics? About how this person uses the electronic space you are examining? About the role this electronic space plays in this person’s relationships and life? About the person’s personal and professional lives? What values does this person hold?
• How do the patterns fit? How would you characterize the person’s persona or ethos? What do you think this person’s persona or ethos represents culturally? Do you find "ethnic," "class,” "national," or other similar significances?
• How reliable or valid are your arguments? In what areas of your analysis are you most/least confident? Could others come to different conclusions by looking at the same information? How might the person being analyzed respond to your analysis? What additional information would need to make more accurate and thorough analyses?

Writing

Although you completed your analysis first and then came to your own picture of this person’s persona or ethos, your written definition begins by making a claim about the persona or ethos, as this was the purpose for your analysis. See pages 236-239 for more information. Successful papers meet the tasks outlined here, address their prompts, and address the criteria outlined in the grading standards in your syllabus. Put the number of words in your paper in your heading.

Turning It In

To receive credit for your paper, you must turn in your final paper and at least one draft. You should also include peer reviews (that you made and that others gave you).

Due

March 31, 2:00 pm.

Context for The Facebook Papers Unit

February 28, 2007

Before looking at the paper prompt and unit schedule, it may be useful to understand where The Facebook Papers unit fits within the course. This section of College Writing asks students to examine the formation of cultural and individual identities.

The Facebook assignment is one of five papers in this first-year writing course. Of the four remaining papers, one is a diagnostic in-class essay about how the student understands college writing, one focuses on what shapes our national identity, one focuses on what shapes cultural identities, and one is a self portrait of the author as an individual and citizen five to ten years into the future as informed by our discussions and experiences through the semester. The units about individual and national or cultural identity begin with readings in the textbook and The Sixties: Years that Shaped a Generation from PBS (http://www.pbs.org/opb/thesixties/index.html). The self-portrait can be developed in a variety of media (video, paper, paint, as examples). During the semester, students develop a portfolio that includes revisions of three of the four main essays, a document that identifies and explains their changes (using a word processor's track changes with comments would suffice), and they write reflective introductions. For the final exam, students once again write an in-class essay about their understanding of college writing.

During each unit, students engage in collaborative learning as they talk and write with each other and with me about college writing (the course title) and the unit topics. In general, at the beginning of a unit, students complete homework assignments that are then shared with the class through some form of class activity, such as small group responses to colleagues' essays. Students next share paper drafts then peers provide quick written feedback. Students also take three drafts home and respond in writing to open-ended questions from an assignment prompt. These peer reviews are graded. After the conversations, students revise their papers in ways that reflect their new understandings. At the end, students revise again for their portfolios in order to showcase their best work.

Writing, Culture, & Technology

October 13, 2006

I wanted to immerse in the writing spaces of Facebook before I ever saw it. After talking with Evelyn, I wanted to connect—identify—with others through the site and I wanted to connect—conceptualize—social networking within the history of print and cultural change. I understand relationships among history and print as neither deterministic nor stochastic but instead as reciprocal or what Bolter and Grusin came to explain as remediated. I wanted to observe the remediation of both the technology and the students themselves.

As scholars in the field know, the community of computers & writing has valued the important historical analyses of print technologies and culture, recognized often through the works of Marshall McLuhan (1964), Elizabeth Eisenstein (1979), Eric Havelock (1982), Walter Ong (1982), and later Jay David Bolter (1991). Christina Haas (1996) portrayed these histories as deterministic in that they presented stories in which technology inevitably changed communication or cultural experiences.

In the second edition of Writing Space, Bolter (2010) responded that technology does not have agency and, therefore, cannot determine the course of culture but that material realities do shape "human practices" and, consequently, cultural choices (p. 19). He emphasized that "material properties" do "impose limitations" (p. 20) that compete with culture—the competitive process of remediation. Remediation as a process is, according to Bolter and Richard Grusin (1999), "the formal logic by which new media refashion prior media forms" (p. 273). Any instance of mediated communication depends upon at least parts of things before it. In terms of its properties, Facebook calls upon photo albums, physical walls on which people write graffiti, email (in the messages), and face-to-face discussions or discussion boards.

David Blakesley (2001) criticized responses such as those from Haas (1996) as well as Bolter and Grusin (1999) as technologically deterministic, but Blakesley found interest and value in their discussion of the remediated self that emerges when we digitize ourselves. This Facebook Paper assignment is situated within a semester-long focus on how convergences of forces influence us. I want to explore ethos with students and find and create opportunities and exigences for acquiring and enacting rhetorical agency within re/mediated culture and selves.