Guided Formal Peer Review of Argument Research Essay Drafts

Being a True and Dedicated Colleague: Guided Formal Peer Review of Argument Research Essay Drafts

Required Resources

 

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

 

Required Peer Review Sheet download

 

Lesson

 

Initial Post Instructions

 

Main Post Part 1: Attach Your Draft and Explain Your Goals

 

After you have thoroughly read and revisited this week’s lesson, you will be ready to perform rich, authentic, expansive, useful peer reviews for your classmates. This is one tool of several that you will use during the important process of revision. During revision, you will “re-vision” your writing to find ways to improve argument, focus, support, organization, voice, and all other aspects of an argument research essay; therefore, additional “sets of eyes” are extremely useful. What’s more, you, the reviewer, will pick up ways to improve your own paper while reading the approaches others are taking, during your reviews of your classmates’ essays.

 

To that end, this week in our discussion area, we will be sharing our full argument research essay drafts in a class peer review. In order to make this process run smoothly, please be sure to follow these instructions:

 

Find your name on the peer review assignment list provided by your professor to determine whether you are in Group A, B, C, D, or E.

 

Once you have located your assigned group (and no later than Wednesday), join that discussion area by attaching your most recently revised draft as your initial post.

 

This may be the draft you submitted to your instructor in Week 5, or you may have made changes since then and will wish to post your most updated copy (remember the “good” to “great” portion of the Lesson!)

 

In your post, also compose a good paragraph offering information about your draft in which you address at least three of your major revision goals. Do not list mechanical items like grammar and APA because it is a given that you’ll edit and proofread for those items. Instead, note at least three content-related goals, such as stronger support for one point, connecting sources to your logic more powerfully, and unifying your points to align well with your thesis. These are just examples; please write a paragraph that notes your own goals and explains the “why” and “how” of those. Be sure to ask your professor if you have any questions about the peer review process.

 

Peer Review (Follow-Up Post) Instructions

 

You must reply to one of the peers in your group with a full review of that peer’s draft.

 

Find the peer who has posted after you in terms of time.

 

Read their attached essay and any notes they left to accompany the draft.

 

Download the Peer Review Sheet and complete the form.

 

Return your completed Peer Review Sheet as an attachment in a response post to your peer. Peer reviews must be completed and posted as a reply to your classmate no later than Friday night. The reason your peer review is due earlier in the week than other discussion replies is that your classmate must have enough time to utilize your feedback.

 

Through Sunday: Continue to check into your group Discussion area to reply back to your reviewer with any questions or clarification you have for them and to check for questions and comments from the student you reviewed.

 

Please consider choosing from debates like the following, taking a stance on one:

 

Wearable remote devices: Issues with user operation and interpretation are/are not significant enough to pose real dangers to patients.

 

Telehealth (remote doctor visits) are/are not viable for all non-lab and non-imaging appointments.

 

Virtual reality experiences for Alzheimer’s patients are/are not going to prove viable and beneficial.

 

Virtual reality experiences can/cannot provide non-sufferers with a true experience of a condition or disease they do not have (such as schizophrenia or limb loss/or choose a specific condition or disease).

 

Medical “chatbots” as a first line of care are/are not advanced and intuitive enough for common and widespread use.

 

Advances in altering human DNA to eliminate disease risk should/should not be considered for common practice.

 

Using genetic databases for better treatment of mental health disorders is/is not ethical.

 

Technological approaches to pain management can/cannot eliminate the need for opiates.

 

Locate any other debate regarding medicine and technology, taking a stance within that debate, and ask your professor if your choice is acceptable.