Instructor’s Annotated Edition for
Ryan M. Moeller
Utah State University
Bedford/St. Martin’s
-1-
Contents
Preface: Why Teach Peer Review?
Why Teach Peer Review with a Game?
What Peer Factor Teaches
Peer Factor and WPA Outcomes
Peer Factor Assignments
Assignment #1: Working with Sources in Peer Review
Assignment #2: Talking the Peer Review Talk
Assignment #3: Asking Questions to Draw Out Good Feedback
Assignment #4: Learning How to Help When You Don't Agree
Assignment #5: Avoiding Dismissiveness
Assignment #6: Negotiating for Better Feedback and Inviting Criticism
Assignment #7: Balancing Direction and Receptivity
Assignment #8: Maintaining Momentum
Assignment #9: Getting Beyond Grammar
Assignment #10: Honoring Readers
How to Use Peer Factor
In Any Classroom
In Non-Computer-Assisted Classrooms
In Smart Classrooms (One Computer and Projector)
In Computer Classrooms (Many Computers)
The Instructor’s Annotated Edition
Annotated Script for Peer Factor, Episode 2: Getting Feedback
Best Practices for Getting Feedback
Full Script: Opening Sequences
Peer Personalities
Annotated Script for Invention Stage
Peer Group #1 Alec and Jamal
Peer Group #2 Marissa and Sam
Peer Group #3 Evie and Liane
-2-
Annotated Script for First Draft Stage
Peer Group #1 Alec and Jamal
Peer Group #2 Marissa and Sam
Peer Group #3 Evie and Liane
Annotated Script for Revised Draft Stage
Peer Group #1 Alec and Jamal
Peer Group #2 Marissa and Sam
Peer Group #3 Evie and Liane
Appendix A: Full Assignment
Appendix B: Monster Hints
-3-
Preface: Why Teach Peer Review?
For over thirty years, peer review has been a centerpiece of the composition classroom,
and it has proven to be one of the most essential tools for first-year writers. It allows
students to grow in two directions: as writers and as readers. As writers, students in the
peer review session learn two critical lessons: first, that what gets put on the page is often
different from what is in the writer’s head, and, second, that the reader brings his or her
own expectations, opinions, and interests to bear in interpreting what is on the page.
Ideally, these two realizations push writers to write increasingly with readers in mind,
and this change in attention leads in turn to better, more focused writing. As readers,
meanwhile, students learn from the peer review process how to read others’ work
carefully and critically and how to respond honestly and with sensitivity. All of these
lessons are applicable not only in the composition class but across students’ college
careers—and beyond.
However, many students do not reap the full benefit of peer review because they go into
the sessions misinformed or unprepared. Some think that their peers won’t have much to
offer them. Others think they have little to offer their peers. Some have had experience
with peer review and have found it to be a waste of time—perhaps because the feedback
was vague, unhelpful, or upsetting—and they didn’t know how to direct the conversation
productively (or even that they could). Peer Factor helps students overcome these
crippling perspectives by teaching specific strategies for giving and receiving feedback.
Why Teach Peer Review with a Game?
Just as peer review has long been used in the composition classroom, games have a longstanding relationship with learning. Sociologists and anthropologists like Johan Huizinga
and Roger Caillois who have studied gaming cultures have concluded that games teach
players many things, including cultural behaviors, social boundaries, and relational
interactions. More recently, James Paul Gee, Ken S. McAllister, and other scholars have
made claims that computer games teach through various factors, including interactivity,
immediate and constant feedback, immersion, and goal-oriented learning. Games are
especially good at teaching players how to interact with a particular environment, so
when we put our heads together to come up with a resource for teaching peer review—a
complex and conditional social activity—a game was an obvious choice for us.
Our intention in this game is to provide players with immediate, tangible feedback on
their performances in a simulated peer review session. We especially want to provide
them with feedback that stimulates them to think about why they were successful in one
round and not so successful in another round. If we’ve done our jobs right as writers and
designers, then this thinking will lead players to more successful peer review strategies in
the composition classroom. This is what we call active learning, and it’s what games are
good at providing.
-4-
What Peer Factor Teaches
In two separate episodes Peer Factor introduces students to the full process of peer
review: giving feedback and getting feedback. Both episodes are designed to model what
we have identified (with the help of students, colleagues, and Bedford/St. Martin's
authors) as the best practices of peer review. Thus, Episode 1: Giving Feedback, models
how to pay attention to the page, think alongside the writer, talk the peer review talk, and
be there for one’s peers. Episode 2: Getting Feedback, models how to be a good listener,
negotiate for better feedback, invite specific kinds of help, and show appreciation.
Both episodes help students achieve the outcomes articulated by the Writing Program
Administrators for first-year composition. Peer Factor offers particular support for the
process outcomes, which address revision, collaboration, and critique. (You can learn
more about this support in the next section, “Peer Factor and WPA Outcomes.”)
Through this focus on best practices and outcomes, we have endeavored to give students
a toolbox of peer review skills that will help them achieve the goals of first-year
composition. But the game builds more than skills; it also builds confidence, encouraging
students to take themselves seriously as readers and as writers. Our ultimate goal is to
create an interactive, educational game that prompts student-players to question their
approaches to peer review. Through this process—of questioning, forming a hypothesis,
and experimenting with that hypothesis—we hope that students will recognize their own
agency both as reviewers and writers.
-5-
Peer Factor and WPA Outcomes
Peer Factor supports many of the outcomes articulated by the Writing Program
Administrators Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition.
http://www.english.ilstu.edu/Hesse/outcomes.html
Above all, the game demonstrates the importance of peer review to the writing process,
showing that writing benefits when students read and respond to their peers’ writing
sensitively and critically. The game teaches the value of feedback, showing students how
to cultivate it, respond to it, and translate it back into the writing. Thus, students come to
understand the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes and they learn to
critique their own and others’ works. The game’s focus on revision makes students
aware that it usually takes multiple drafts to create and complete a successful text. In
Episode 2 students get to see how a paper evolves through the invention, draft, and
revision stages in response to peer feedback
The game shows students that a productive peer review dialogue involves both
receptivity and direction, modeling for students the importance of balancing the
advantages of relying on others with the responsibility of doing their part. Finally, the
game demonstrates the usefulness of focusing on ideas and their expression rather than
on sentence- and word-level edits, teaching students to review work-in-progress in
collaborative peer groups for purposes other than editing and to save extensive editing
for later parts of the writing process.
Included here are several assignments meant to help you use Peer Factor to achieve
recommended outcomes for first-year composition. Correlations with WPA outcomes are
noted at the beginning of each assignment.
-6-
Peer Factor Assignments
Assignment #1: Working with Sources in Peer Review
Correlations with WPA outcomes: understand a writing assignment as a series of tasks,
including finding, evaluating, analyzing, and synthesizing appropriate primary and
secondary sources, and learn to balance the advantages of relying on others with the
responsibility of doing your part.
Peer reviewers can be useful allies in the task of working with sources. For example, at
the outline stage, peer reviewers can tell writers which quotations best illustrate their
main points and can identify claims that need more outside support. In Peer Factor,
Episode 2, Invention Stage, Question #3, the writer is faced with a choice: either recruit
Alec for help with these source tasks, or agree with him in deciding sources are
unnecessary. You can use this example to discuss why writers should take responsibility
for supporting their claims (even when reviewers tell them not to bother) and how they
can recruit reviewers’ help with source tasks.
Discuss: Ask students to recall a time they developed a persuasive argument. This
argument might have been formal or informal—for example, a paper, blog entry, or even
a bid for a car from hesitant parents. How much did they prioritize building support for
their claims? Were they careful to support all of their points—or did they sometimes
make unsupported assertions? Did they recruit others’ help in deciding which evidence
would best support their points—or did they go it alone? Ask students to report the
outcome of their argument. How did their process of gathering and vetting support affect
the outcome?
-7-
Assignment #2: Talking the Peer Review Talk
Correlates with WPA outcome: learn to critique their own and others' works.
Peer review conversations can be improved by a small vocabulary of writing terms, such
as thesis, perspective, organization, purpose, details, and audience. Such terms allow
writers to say more in fewer words and help keep the peer review dialogue focused on
what matters. For example, in Peer Factor, Episode 1, Second Response, c, the peer
reviewer tells Jamal: “To get your perspective across, you should focus your whole paper
on it by stating it in your thesis and then implying it through your choice of details.” This
comment makes a succinct and specific suggestion that keeps the focus on three
important elements of Jamal’s paper: perspective, thesis, and details.
Discuss: Ask students to brainstorm contexts that have specific vocabularies, such as
sports (crew, climbing); household arts (cooking, gardening); religions (Christianity,
Hinduism); or computers (gaming, graphic design). Ask them to choose the arenas they
are most familiar with and write down some of the words used. From their own
experience, how does this vocabulary benefit those using it? Does it simplify their
dialogue? Focus it? Provide a speedy shorthand? Are the same benefits true for peer
reviewers using writing vocabulary?
Investigate: Project Peer Factor on an overhead display and ask students to point out
comments that include the words thesis, perspective, organization, purpose, details, and
audience. Ask students to rephrase these sentences without using the writing terms. Can
they do it? Is anything lost?
-8-
Assignment #3: Asking Questions to Draw Out Good Feedback
Correlates with WPA outcome: understand the collaborative and social aspects of
writing processes.
As the Peer Factor game shows, a writer participating in peer review has a great deal of
control over the flow of feedback: he or she can stop a helpful response with a defensive
statement or draw it out with a directed question. In Peer Factor, Episode 2, Invention
Stage, Question #1, Alec, who hasn’t read the writer’s paper, asks the writer to articulate
the thesis: “What are you trying to say about American Idol?” If the writer finds Alec’s
flakiness frustrating or his request for a paraphrase overwhelming, he or she might be
tempted to simply direct him back to the paper, as in option c—and thereby stop the
conversation. But if the writer points Alec to the thesis and then asks a question—even a
simple one such as “Did you get that?”—he or she can open the door to dialogue. Alec
might then say, “I got it; it’s just not very interesting.” The author could then ask why,
and a productive conversation would ensue.
Discuss: Ask students to recall a conversation with a classmate, friend, or family member
in which a topic arose that they would have wanted to discuss with that person, but they
felt frustrated, offended, or overwhelmed by the person’s approach to it. How did they
deal with their reaction? How did their words change the course of the conversation,
either stopping it or opening the way to productive dialogue? If they responded with a
conversation-stopper, ask them to re-imagine the interaction. Would a question have
invited dialogue instead?
Investigate: Project Peer Factor on an overhead display and ask students to indicate
whether each possible response would stop productive dialogue or invite it. Of those that
invite dialogue, how many are questions? What sorts of questions seem particularly good
at eliciting productive feedback?
-9-
Assignment #4: Learning How to Help When You Don’t Agree
Correlates with WPA outcome: understand the collaborative and social aspects of
writing processes.
It is not uncommon for a peer reviewer to think, “I don’t agree” or “My experience is
different.” A novice reviewer might take such thoughts as grounds to withdraw from the
process, concluding, “I can’t possibly help this writer say what he or she is trying to say”
(or “I don’t want to help this writer say what he or she is trying to say”). Several
responses in Peer Factor, Episode 1, demonstrate this misguided attitude, including
Jamal, Second Response, a (“Well, I disagree with your perspective. Someone in my
family died of lung cancer because of cigarettes. I’ve seen the kind of damage people like
Nick Naylor can do to families.”) and Marissa, First Response, b (“I couldn’t concentrate
too well on the paper, actually. Since I don’t have a kid, it didn’t seem very relevant to
me.”). Ask students to consider these responses in the context of the discussion below.
Discuss: Ask students to recall a recent collaborative project—a chance to work with
others to create something for which all members would get credit . . . or criticism. This
project might have been a group paper or presentation for a college course or something
less formal—perhaps a meal prepared with a family member, or a surprise party planned
with friends. Ask students to identify moments during the process when they felt uneasy
with the decisions others were making, or when they disagreed with another’s approach.
How did they respond? Did they withdraw from the process? Stridently press their point?
Dialogue with the person with whom they were at odds?
Ask students to reflect on how a collaborative project is similar to or different
from peer review. (Students may point out that while the members of a collaborative
group each have a say in the final product, the writer is the final arbiter of opinions in
peer review. However, in both collaborative groups and peer review groups, members are
working toward a common goal and must learn to handle differences diplomatically in
the service of that goal.) Ask students to consider how they might use lessons learned in
collaborative groups in the context of peer review. The common goal in peer review is a
strong paper in which the writer’s ideas are articulately expressed. How might reviewers
who disagree with a writer’s point or fail to share a writer’s perspective help achieve this
goal? (Students may advise that reviewers present their reactions as alternative
perspectives that the writer might accommodate or challenge to strengthen the paper.)
- 10 -
Assignment #5: Avoiding Dismissiveness
Correlates with WPA outcome: understand the collaborative and social aspects of
writing processes.
In Peer Factor, Episode 2, First Draft Stage, Question #3, Alec suggests that the writer’s
lack of citations is tantamount to plagiarism. In responses b and d, the writer immediately
dismisses Alec’s concern. The writer’s knee-jerk reaction causes him or her to miss a
good point and leaves the writer vulnerable to the charge of plagiarism later.
Discuss: Referring to this question and Best Practice #1 ("Be a good listener" and "Take
everything in"), ask students to discuss as a class why writers would be wise not to
dismiss reviewers’ concerns out of hand. (Students might point out that peer reviewers
are usually sincere, if sometimes inarticulate or undiplomatic. Even seemingly off-base or
bone-headed comments usually arise from authentic and informative reactions, which the
writer can seek to clarify with questions.) Ask students to consider ways to avoid the
temptation of immediately dismissing seemingly silly comments. (Students may
recommend a policy of pausing before responding, taking a moment to consider a
reviewer’s comment with an objective lens, and then making an informed decision about
whether to incorporate, discard, or push the reviewer to clarify or deepen the comment.)
- 11 -
Assignment #6: Negotiating for Better Feedback and Inviting Criticism
Correlates with WPA outcome: learn to critique their own and others’ works.
How can a writer elicit the feedback he or she needs from a reviewer who is afraid to
criticize? In Peer Factor, Episode 2, Invention Stage, Question #1, the writer’s task is to
invite constructive criticism from Marissa, whose forte is not criticism but praise.
Discuss: Using this question as a starting point, ask students to brainstorm approaches
writers can use to encourage critical feedback from peers who are reluctant to go
negative. Possible approaches include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ask reviewers to talk more about what they liked and why they liked it. Once they
are warmed up, ask them to identify places that were not as successful.
Ask reviewers to identify both strong and weak sections. Knowing they can soften
their criticism with praise may encourage them to open up.
Critique your own work and invite your reviewers to reflect on your criticism:
“I’m afraid my thesis doesn’t summarize all my points the way it should. What do
you think?”
Show appreciation, and then rephrase positive comments as concerns: “I’m glad
the main point of that paragraph was coming through, but I was worried that some
parts of it weren’t as clear as they could have been.”
Follow up with specific questions: “Were there any points at which you were
confused?”
Tell reviewers you need their constructive criticism: “Knowing when things get
hazy will really help me focus my revision efforts.”
- 12 -
Assignment #7: Balancing Direction and Receptivity
Correlates with WPA outcome: learn to balance the advantages of relying on others with
the responsibility of doing their part.
In order for a peer review session to be successful, the writer needs to know when and
how much to direct feedback. It’s tricky for the writer to know when to soundboard their
own ideas or, alternatively, to ask reviewers to offer their ideas; when to keep questions
narrow (“Should I end on an image or a call to action?”) or to ask open-ended questions
(“How would you recommend concluding this paper?”). A writer comes to peer review to
share his or her work—he or she brings a particular set of ideas to the table, and comes
up with more during the process. But the writer is also there to listen to and consider new
ideas and perspectives.
Achieving a balance between direction and receptivity depends in part on understanding
reviewers’ personalities. In Peer Factor, Episode 2, First Draft Stage, Question #4, Jamal
complains that the writer’s conclusion is “missing something.” Is Jamal the kind of
reviewer whose feedback would be improved by more direction, or less? For Jamal,
would the narrower question “Should I end on an image, or a call to action?” yield a more
productive response than the open-ended question “How would you recommend
concluding this paper?” Why? Use this question as a starting point for the activity below.
Discuss: Divide students into groups and ask them to review the personalities of each of
the six Peer Factor reviewers and identify which reviewers would do better with more
focused questions, which with open-ended questions. Ask them to support their
conclusions. Ask students which kind of question they would prefer to be asked in peer
review.
Investigate: Look at questions where the reviewer chose to ask either open-ended
questions or questions narrowed with options. For example, First Draft, Question #1, d
(narrowed to Marissa, “Do you think I should focus on the stage, the performers, or the
judges?”); First Draft, Question #4, a (open-ended to Sam: “I wasn’t sure how I should
end the paper at all. What would you suggest?”); Revised Draft, Question #4, a
(narrowed to Jamal: “Do you think I should lose the quote or just work it into the paper
better?”). These three responses are +2 responses. What aspects of the reviewers'
personalities make narrowed questions work best for Jamal and Marissa and open-ended
questions work best for Sam?
- 13 -
Assignment #8: Maintaining Momentum
Correlates with WPA outcome: be aware that it usually takes multiple drafts to create
and complete a successful text.
It’s difficult for writers to approach a revised draft peer review session with the same
level of openness that they brought to the outline session. By the revised draft stage,
writers have, for several drafts, been doing the hard work of listening to, directing, and
deciding whether or not to use others’ advice. They may be ready to put their feet up and
settle for what they’ve got. In Peer Factor, Episode 2, Revised Draft, Question #1, Alec
tells the writer that most of his or her ideas came through, but some might have been
clearer. In response c the writer decides to settle for this less-than-complete clarity. He or
she lets him or herself and Alec off the peer review hook by saying, “Great! That sounds
like I’m basically where I should be.” Use this question as a starting point for the
discussion below.
Discuss: Divide students into groups and ask them to recall a recent project. This could
be a school paper, a work assignment, a task for a volunteer organization, or a personal
goal such as training for a race. How did their efforts change over the course of the
process? Did they maintain a steady level of effort from beginning to end, or did their
motivation go up and down? Did they alter their effort as the end neared, either letting up
or digging in? How did their pace, especially at the end of the process, affect the outcome
of the project?
- 14 -
Assignment #9: Getting Beyond Grammar
Correlates with WPA outcome: to review work-in-progress in collaborative peer groups
for purposes other than editing.
It can be tempting for peer reviewers to latch on to grammar mistakes: they’re easy to
spot and report, and can serve as scapegoats for a paper’s lack of clarity. However,
grammar comments take time away from more substantive dialogue and can be
discouraging to writers. Use the following “grammar police” comments in Peer Factor,
Episode 1, as a starting point for the discussion below: Alec, Second Response, a; Jamal,
First Response, d; Marissa, First Response, c; Liane, First Response, d.
Discuss: Divide students into groups and challenge them to identify the many actions
they took to write their last paper. (Did they discuss topic ideas with friends? Mull over
their thesis on the bus? Use library databases for research? Jot notes? Write and erase and
rewrite their way to a draft? Reconsider an approach after the critique of a peer review
group?) Is the bulk of their work as writers substantive (thinking, composing,
reconsidering) or mechanical (reviewing commas and verb endings)? How can their work
in peer review best reflect and support this emphasis?
- 15 -
Assignment #10: Honoring Readers
Correlates with WPA outcome: respond to the needs of different audiences.
Writers would do well to live by the motto, “The reader is always right,” a writerly
version of the service industry motto, “The customer is always right.” This is not to say
that writers should never make decisions that go counter to readers’ suggestions, but that
writers should honor readers’ perspectives, remembering that the very purpose of writing
is to communicate to—who else?—readers. In Peer Factor, Episode 2, Revised Draft,
Question #2, Jamal complains that the writer’s poor grammar and style get in the way of
the paper’s readability. “Your ideas are good,” he says, “but you need to work on the
writing. The mistakes are kind of distracting.” The player (in the role of writer) can
choose to listen to or dismiss Jamal’s comment. Use this question as a starting point for
the discussion or investigation below.
Discuss: As a class activity, ask students to brainstorm reasons why a writer might
discount a reader’s perspective. Possible responses include: 1) Because the writer
perceives the reader giving feedback as a “bad” reader—he or she isn’t getting it, but
others will—or not the “right” reader (i.e., not the professor, or the audience for which
the paper is written). 2) Because the reader’s suggestion sounds too difficult to
implement, and so the writer invents an excuse not to follow it (even though the writer
might not be aware of doing so). 3) Because the reader’s real perspective is obscured by a
misstatement or misleading prescription.
As another activity, ask students to brainstorm advice for writers tempted to
dismiss a reader’s point of view. Possible responses include: 1) When a reader doesn’t
get something, first assume that the miscommunication was caused by the paper’s
murkiness rather than the reader’s denseness. 2) Audiences do differ, but not that much—
especially where clarity is concerned. If a peer reviewer is having trouble understanding
something, the professor probably will, too. If you have written a paper—say, a
proposal—with a particular audience in mind, such as the city council or the university
administration, let your reviewers know that and ask them from the get-go to read the
paper with your audience’s perspective in mind. 3) Resist laziness! Look at your readers’
toughest suggestions as challenges. 4) A reader may make an unproductive or even
counterproductive suggestion, but what animates that feedback is often an initial reaction
that you will benefit from hearing. Seek out such reactions by asking questions.
Investigate: Project Peer Factor on an overhead display and identify the responses that
best honor readers’ perspectives and show trust in the value of their initial reactions by
drawing them out with questions. Which questions devalue readers’ perspectives and
reactions, and how? How does the direction the feedback takes when writers are honoring
readers’ perspectives differ from the direction it takes when they are not? Does this
resonate with students’ own experiences in peer review?
- 16 -
How to Use Peer Factor
The following activities are meant to spark your imaginations as to the possibilities for
using Peer Factor successfully in your classrooms.
In Any Classroom
Assign playing an episode of Peer Factor as homework. Have students reflect on the
experience by writing a paragraph or two in response to these questions:
• What did they learn about successful peer review techniques?
• Which situations presented in the game have they experienced in actual peer
review sessions?
• How did they handle those situations then? How did they handle those situations
in the game? Were they rewarded in either case?
Then, in class, have students share their peer review experiences with one another. Guide
them in generating a peer review contract with one another based upon the best practices
of peer review learned in the game. The contract should describe as much about their peer
review session as possible, including when drafts are due to the group, what level of
drafts are expected, what types of comments will be valued and in what form (electronic,
handwritten in margins, verbal, etc.), and so on.
Assign Peer Factor as homework. Have students write a list of ten best practices for peer
review. During class, divide the students into groups and have them choose the best five
practices among those identified by their group. As a class, generate your own best
practices list and compare it to ours.
Assign Peer Factor, Episodes 1 and 2, to the class as homework. Ask students to reflect
on the differences between the two. For example, what strategies should you employ
differently when you are getting feedback rather than giving it? Which strategies seem
universal?
Assign Peer Factor, Episode 2, to the class as homework. Ask students to diagram the
comments, indicating which types of comments are more appropriate to which level of
draft (invention, early draft, or revised draft). As a class, discuss why this might be.
- 17 -
In Non-Computer-Assisted Classrooms
Print out the sample papers from the game, make overheads of the sample question
screens (see Fig. 1), and discuss the answer options as a class. Prompt students to discuss
the positives and negatives for each choice.
Fig. 1: A sample screen shot from the game that can be printed and discussed in class.
Print out the papers from the game and have students role-play a peer review session
based upon those papers. After reviewing a paper, have students talk about ways to keep
their comments positive, on track, and constructively critical. Guide students in creating a
peer review contract with one another that should help them be productive with one
another on their own papers.
In Smart Classrooms (One Computer and Projector)
Project the game onto the overhead display. Using feedback devices like iClickers (if
available) play the game as a group, allowing the majority of feedback to advance the
game. If feedback devices are not available, then a show of hands or brief discussion
would be just as good. Discuss the outcome of each choice made.
Fun activity: Play “One versus one hundred” with the class. Have a volunteer play the
round, but allow them to ask the rest of the class for help.
Have students brainstorm peer review fears or frustrations in class. Write them down on a
marker board or record them in an online discussion forum. Play the game as a class as
- 18 -
above, identifying students’ fears or frustrations and strategies for overcoming them. End
the class by creating together a peer review contract that will help students be successful
reviewers of their peers’ own work.
In Computer Classrooms (Many Computers)
Have students play the game individually or in groups, giving them a chance to play an
episode more than once. In a larger group, discuss what peer review strategies made them
successful in the game and how they might implement those strategies in their own peer
review groups. End the class by creating together a peer review contract that will help
students be successful reviewers of their peers’ own work.
Divide the class into groups and have them each play an episode with different
characters. After they’ve finished an episode, have them present the paper and the peer
review session to the class, noting the paper’s strengths and weaknesses, and how their
peer review session might lead to a more successful draft.
The Instructor’s Annotated Edition
The Instructor’s Annotated Edition includes detailed commentary about how each
response to each Peer Factor game question was evaluated. We hope that this
commentary will simplify and enhance your class work with the game. You can refer to it
if you play the game as a class, either after or instead of individual play. We envision that
you will project the game on an overhead, pausing to discuss why certain responses are
scored as they are. We also know that you will invent your own creative and productive
ways to use the game in and out of class, and we would love to hear about your
innovations. Please write to us at englisheditor@bedfordstmartins.com.
- 19 -
Annotated Script for Peer Factor
Episode 2: Getting Feedback
Best Practices for Getting Feedback
To get the most out of peer review you will need to take an active role in the process.
Keep the following best practices in mind during your peer review session.
1. Above all, be a good listener. You will likely be barraged by diverse and
contradictory feedback. Challenge yourself to take everything in. The more fully you are
able to inhabit each of your peers’ perceptions—including their misperceptions—the
more successful you will be at deciding which comments you should file for safekeeping,
which you should discard as dead ends, and which you should push further.
Ultimately, your peers should be able to give you information about how readable your
text is because they are, believe or not, your readers. Listen to what they have to say.
2. Once you have listened well to what your peers have to say, you are ready to negotiate
for better feedback. Comments that are ripe for negotiation include:
• Those that seem half-baked, not quite right, or on the verge. The reviewer may be
picking up on something that is useful for you to hear, but hasn’t articulated it
precisely.
How to negotiate: Say back what you have heard; this will give the reviewer a
chance to see what isn’t coming through.
• Misunderstandings. A misunderstanding may indicate that the reviewer wasn't
reading carefully, or it may signal that your writing is not as clear as it could be.
How to negotiate: Resist the urge to explain yourself. Instead, ask your other
reviewers how they understood the section in question.
• General comments. Vague statements about your paper (“This is funny”) or about
particular sections (“I liked the part about your dad”) can be useful only if you press
the reviewer to get specific.
How to negotiate: Ask for examples. Probe deeper by asking what made those
sections memorable or meaningful. Consider what you can do to apply this
information to other parts of your paper.
• Unclear comments. There may be comments that you can’t wrap your head around.
But that doesn’t mean that you should leave things in an unclear state.
How to negotiate: To clarify, try repeating back what you think you heard.
Sometimes good ideas get lost in translation. Spending extra time to clarify a
comment can help reveal useful insights.
- 20 -
• Too much of a good thing. Everyone dreams of a peer review session full of
comments like, “I loved it,” or “great job, don't change a thing.” Reviewers are often
reluctant to criticize and most of us are content to bask in praise without pushing
further.
How to negotiate: Allow yourself to enjoy a good pat on the back, but then get down
to business. The goal of peer review is to discover ways to improve your paper. Ask
your peers to talk more about what they liked and why they liked it. Then ask them to
identify places that were not as successful.
• Silence. Dead silence during a peer review session can be very unnerving. You may
wonder: Did they hate it so much they can’t think of anything nice to say? Is it
completely incomprehensible? I worked hard on it, but did anybody read it?
How to negotiate: Keep in mind, these assumptions are probably unfounded. In most
cases reviewers are simply feeling unsure of themselves. They say nothing because
they are afraid of saying something wrong. Put them at ease by being the first one to
break the ice. Point to something specific in your paper and pose a question to get the
conversation going.
3. Feel free to invite specific kinds of help. You may want to ask readers to help you
solve a particular problem in your paper, or to make comments that will help you better
address a particular audience or achieve a particular purpose. (Keep in mind that if you
provide such a framework, the comments you receive will be more focused but they will
cover less ground.) Make your request clear at the outset and remind your readers of it if
they forget.
4. Show appreciation. When you show appreciation for their perspectives, readers will
readily respond by giving you more. Listen to and engage with your readers’ comments.
When you hear something that seems especially insightful or that makes something
clearer for you, say so. And always thank your readers at the end of the session for taking
the time to respond.
5. Take responsibility. There’s nothing that will annoy your peer reviewers more than if
you don’t take responsibility for your own writing. It’s fine to say that you don’t know
something in response to a question, but then take the next step and find out. The more
invested you are in your own writing, the more likely your reviewers are to be as well.
6. Manage expectations. Sometimes the peer review process can be overwhelming. You
may come out of a particularly critical session feeling like you can't do anything right.
Remember, the goal in peer review is to get your classmates to help you improve your
paper. Too much feedback is usually a good thing, but if it leaves you feeling defeated,
try asking your peers to identify places where the paper is working. Chances are you've
got some good ideas in there to build on. It's important not to lose sight of the progress
you are making.
7. Analyze the results. Even after you've mastered the art of getting feedback, don't
assume the peer review process will give you everything you need to improve your paper.
- 21 -
Peer review is designed to help you improve your skills as a writer and as a collaborator,
but try to keep it in perspective. Incorporating every suggestion still might not earn you
high marks from your instructor. Some of what your peers say will be useful, some of it
won't be. Ultimately, you are responsible for the final results.
Full Script: Opening Sequences
Note: text that appears in square brackets [ ] is for reference only. It does not appear in
the online game.
[Opening Sequence: Instructions]
It is peer review day and this time you are on the spot. Getting advice from your peers is
not as easy as it sounds. Some reviewers are going to give feedback that is hard to hear,
while others will serve up empty flattery. Then there are the reviewers who didn't read
your paper at all! How are you going to get useful comments out of this crew?
Your objective in Episode 2 is to master the art of getting better feedback in three stages
of paper writing: Invention, First Draft, and Revised Draft. To play, choose a peer group
and a writing stage. Listen actively to what your peers have to say and pick the response
that will get the best results. Good luck!
Start
- 22 -
Peer Personalities
[Step One: Choose peer group (character profiles pop up on rollover)]
[Peer Group #1: Alec and Jamal]
Alec hasn't read your paper and isn't very interested in this class overall. But don't write
him off: Alec can still dialogue with you about your ideas. In fact, by pushing you to talk
through and paraphrase those ideas, he may even lead you to new insights. Point to
trouble spots in your paper and give him a minute to read and respond.
Jamal dislikes uncertainty, hesitation, and fogginess—in himself and in your paper. He's
good at providing snapshots of what's wrong and what's right in your essay, but impatient
when it comes to working out tangles that need more sustained attention. When he offers
simplifications, dig deeper to see how he arrived at them.
[Peer Group #2: Marissa and Sam]
Marissa provides lots of warm fuzzies, which, let's face it, can be nice to have at peer
review time. Go ahead and bask in her praise, and then get down to business. Encourage
her to give you constructive critical advice. And remember, she doesn't want to hurt your
feelings, so show her you can handle the truth.
- 23 -
Sam loves to talk about writing, gets annoyed by bad work, and is a bit of a show-off in
peer review. His comments can leave you feeling overwhelmed or insulted. What can you
do? Keep a cool head and get your ego out of the way. If you can manage to listen
objectively, Sam will give you helpful advice.
[Peer Group #3: Evie and Liane]
Evie is sharp and insightful but she doesn't like peer review. She thinks your paper is
your responsibility. Getting her help will require savvy negotiating. Her attitude is offputting, but she's a good writer who really knows her stuff. If you can draw her out, she
will give you great feedback.
Liane doesn't have much confidence in her own writing and doesn't know what to say
about yours. Reassure her that she doesn't need to be a great writer, just a thoughtful
reader. Liane's honest feedback can help you figure out if your paper is logical,
organized, original, and interesting.
[Step Two: Choose a writing stage]
Invention Stage
Think through your ideas and evaluate your research to build a solid foundation for a first
draft.
First Draft Stage
Rework it! The first draft is a starting point; your peers can help you find ways to
improve.
Revised Draft Stage
Stay open to suggestions. Even at this late stage in the writing process there is work to
do!
[Step Three: Click to begin game play.]
Review your choices.
<< Go Back Play Game>>.
- 24 -
Annotated Script for Invention Stage
[Read paper pop-up window]
Print
Close
Assignment: Do a close reading or analysis of an advertisement, a film, a song, a Web
site, a television show, or some other form of media. Discuss the impact the piece had on
you and how its elements worked together to send a message. Click to read full
assignment.
Message from the Instructor: During the Invention stage, work with your peers to
organize your ideas and lay the groundwork for a first draft. To begin, analyze the
assignment, choose an engaging topic, establish a purpose (what do you want to say?),
consider your audience, gather source material, draft an outline, and craft a thesis.
Scratch Outline for American Idol
Thesis Statement: American Idol shows America's biggest dream is to be famous.
•
American Idol is as American as apple pie and Marilyn Monroe (or more American).
Plus it has All-American sponsors like Cingular, Coke, Ford
•
American Idol makes fools out of ordinary people reaching for their dreams
o Snarling cat guy
- 25 -
o Contestants who get down on their knees, cry, and beg to continue
o Comment on a blog: "I think they pick the worst people in the beginning
just to demean and embarrass them. It's sick."
•
Simon is really mean.
•
The audience watching thinks they're better but actually they judge contestants just
like Simon does. Seeing people try out and get humiliated makes people watching
feel better about the fact that they are ordinary.
•
People like to watch because it's like a circus or a freak show sometimes
•
I loved Jennifer Hudson. My mom cried when she performed.
•
It's like a lottery because some contestants do become famous and that makes
everyone more crazy to be on American Idol
o Jennifer Hudson (Academy Award)
o Kelly Clarkson (Grammy)
•
Wanting to be famous twists people's values
o Kids care more about fame than other more important things
o Americans are focused on fame
Quotes:
Fame Junkies, Newsweek, Jan. 22, 2007 issue, By Ramin Setoodeh
"Anybody can be famous now," says Paula Abdul. "It's like a disease."
In his new book, Fame Junkies: The Hidden Truths Behind America's Favorite Addiction,
author Jake Halpern conducted a survey of 653 middle-school students in the Rochester,
N.Y., area: Given a choice of becoming the CEO of a major corporation, the president of
Yale or Harvard, a Navy SEAL, a U.S. senator or "the personal assistant to a very famous
singer or movie star," almost half of the girls — 43.4% — chose the assistant role.
Taylor Hicks, 29, emerged as the winner in the finale of the TV show on Wednesday
night in which 63 million votes were cast. It is the biggest single voting night in the fiveseason history of the show. In the 1984 US presidential election, 54.5 million voters
backed Ronald Reagan—the most votes obtained by a president.
"American Idol outvotes the president", by Mark Sweney and agencies in Los Angeles,
Friday, May 26, 2006, The Guardian.
- 26 -
Peer Group #1: Alec and Jamal
[Invention Stage comments from Alec & Jamal]
[Comment #1: Alec]
Okay, so what are you trying to say about American Idol?
[Response #1]
You say:
a) Um, did you read it?
Alec's Response: Nope, sorry. I was up half the night coding for my CompSci class, and
then I spaced out for a while in front of old Star Trek episodes.
[Alec has clearly come to the peer review session unprepared, not having read the
author’s paper. But, by responding to Alec’s flakiness with a snarky comment, the
author puts Alec on the defensive and shuts down productive dialogue. Point value:
–2]
b) I'm trying to say that American Idol basically turns the American Dream into a bad
joke. Can you take a quick look at the main points in my outline and tell me if you think
my thesis sums them up?
Alec's Response: Yeah, I see you covered that in your main points but not really in your
- 27 -
thesis. That's why I didn't get it at first. Your thesis should say what you're going to try to
prove in the paper, which, according to what you just said, is that the show actually twists
the American Dream.
[Rather than responding with frustration to Alec’s unpreparedness, the author
engages with Alec, welcoming his willingness to enter the peer review conversation.
By responding to Alec’s request for a paraphrase of the thesis, the author indicates
that he or she is willing to meet Alec halfway and gives him a starting point.
Paraphrasing the thesis is also a useful exercise for the author. Then, with a
directed question, the author gives Alec a manageable task that should also be
informative for the author. Point value: +2]
c) I say right here in my thesis: "American Idol shows America's biggest dream is to be
famous."
Alec's Response: Oh, right. Gotcha.
[Alec has invited the author to engage in a useful exercise: paraphrasing the thesis
out loud, without reference to the paper. But the author ignores the opportunity,
instead directing Alec back to the paper with a dismissive “I say right here.” The
author seems to be saying: “Since you didn’t make the effort to read my paper, why
should I make the effort to summarize it for you?” Point value: –1]
d) Well, I think the show is popular because everyone wants to be famous and they like
to see that you can get there easily. It's kind of a twist on the old American Dream of hard
work and getting ahead.
Alec's Response: Yeah, that sounds a lot more interesting than what you have. It's more
of an argument about something. The thesis you have now is kind of bland and
descriptive.
[The author takes the opportunity to use Alec as a sounding board. However, he or
she does not direct Alec’s feedback with a question. Point value: +1]
[Comment #2: Jamal]
You've got so much stuff here and some of it goes off on weird tangents. You should get
rid of some of it.
[Response #2]
You say:
a) I know, but I have no idea what to get rid of. It all feels really important and connected
to what I want to say.
- 28 -
Jamal's Response: Well, you need to think about it and figure something out. It's kind of
a mess right now.
[The author ducks the responsibility of thinking through the main points, thereby
deflecting Jamal’s feedback and shutting down further conversation. Point value: –
1]
b) Yeah, I see what you mean. At this stage, I just wanted to get everything down that
was interesting. Can you point out a couple of things that seem unnecessary?
Jamal's Response: Sure. The point about your mom crying when Jennifer Hudson
performed—what does that add? And the point about people liking to watch because it's a
circus or a freak show. That's kind of redundant.
[The author invites further help and directs Jamal effectively. Point value: +1]
Jamal dislikes uncertainty, hesitation, and fogginess—in himself and in your paper. He's
good at providing snapshots of what's wrong and what's right in your essay, but impatient
when it comes to working out tangles that need more sustained attention. When he offers
simplifications, dig deeper to see how he arrived at them.
c) What do you mean "weird tangents"? It all makes sense if you think about it.
Jamal's Response: That's what they always say about those weird arty movies my
girlfriend's always dragging me to. I'd rather see Saw any day of the week.
[This response shuts Jamal down. The author’s question—“What do you mean,
‘weird tangents?’”—isn’t a sincere probing for more information. Instead, it’s
rhetorical, part of the defensive assertion that “It all makes sense if you think about
it.” Point value: –2]
d) I only want stuff that supports my thesis—that fame messes with our values. Can you
look at each highlighted point and help me figure out if it works?
Jamal's Response: Get rid of: "American as apple pie, Simon is really mean," and "my
mom cried." The point about the audience is important. That would help support your
claim that America is obsessed with fame.
[The author encourages Jamal to get specific by reviewing “each highlighted point.”
This is an effective approach to a reviewer like Jamal, whose assessments may be
accurate but simplistic. Point value: +2]
[Scene 9: Comment #3: Alec]
- 29 -
I don't think you should have quotes for a paper like this. It's supposed to be about your
opinions, not other peoples'.
[Scene 9: Response #3]
You say:
a) I totally agree. I got the quotes because the professor says we need at least three, but I
don't think they do much to help the paper. I mean, all of this stuff is obvious without
quotes to prove it.
Alec's Response: Yeah, adding some of this stuff just seems like filler, sometimes.
[Rather than recruiting Alec to help consider how sources might be used
meaningfully in the paper, the author indulges in complaining about the
assignment’s requirements. Point value: -2]
b) I think the quotes might add something. I'm trying to use the quotes to look at this new
perspective on fame that people have. Does that make sense?
Alec's Response: Yeah, I guess maybe that's true. I wonder what that quote says about
Paula. Does she believe that, really? Does she think it's a good thing? If you're going to
use it, I say look into it more.
[The author backs up his or her decision to use quotations, and does so in a
reflective, rather than a defensive, way. He or she then asks Alec a question, one
that keeps the peer review conversation aloft but does not usefully steer Alec’s
feedback. Point value: +1]
c) I think quotes help prove my ideas. Like the idea that the average person will do a lot
for that moment of fame and the question of what happens when they get it—do you
think the quotes I found show that?
Alec's Response: Hmmm, let me look . . . yeah, they do. But you didn't put them in your
outline. You should figure out how to weave them in there, the last two in Section Four,
for example.
[The author gives Alec a bite-sized task—to determine whether the quotations
support a particular idea (which the writer briefly states). This is a useful tactic to
use with a reviewer like Alec, who has not read the paper and does not put much
stock in the class, but is willing to help at peer review time. A reviewer like Alec can
be a important ally if the writer can avoid frustration with his unpreparedness and
direct his feedback with on-the-spot tasks, as the writer does here. Point value: +2]
- 30 -
d) Wow, you're right. I never thought about it like that.
Alec's Response: Glad I could help.
[The writer works against him- or herself by affirming Alec’s counterproductive
comment. Point value: -1]
[Scene 10: Comment #4: Jamal]
You could organize this better.
[Scene 10: Response #4.]
You say:
a) I used highlights to set off the main points. Does it make more sense knowing that?
Jamal's Response: It helps a little, I guess.
[The writer focuses on format (the bullet points or “highlights” the writer uses to set
off his or her main points) rather than content (the paper’s logic). Although
Jamal’s initial comment was so terse it could have been construed as either about
format or content, by choosing format, the writer misses the opportunity to invite
Jamal to go deeper. The writer’s yes-or-no question also does nothing to elicit
meaningful feedback from Jamal. Point value: -1]
b) What do you mean? Can you point out where it falls apart and give me some
suggestions for organizing it better?
Jamal's Response: I mean that your outline isn't showing me exactly what you are going
to argue. I would try to reorganize it so that there's more logic to how one point leads into
the next; that will help you organize the paper itself.
[The writer asks for clarification and gives Jamal a focused task: to point out where
the organization is confusing and give advice for improving it. This is an effective
approach to a reviewer like Jamal, whose feedback is often brief and general, and
who needs to be asked to explain himself. Point value: +2]
c) Sorry it's so confusing. Can we talk about what I've got so far? I set off the main points
with highlighting and tried to organize them in the order that I'll use them in the paper.
- 31 -
Jamal's Response: Okay, one sec. I think it's great that you tried to organize your points
but the outline seems kind of stream of consciousness to me. I would start with the one
about how Idol makes fools out of ordinary people and finish with the one about the
audience.
[The writer admits to problems with the organization and directs Jamal to elaborate
on his criticism, but also communicates that he or she is not entirely open to
reorganizing. Point value: +1]
d) Organization? It's just an outline—that's how it's supposed to be. It's stream of
consciousness.
Jamal's Response: I don't think that really works once you're in college classes.
[Jamal’s unvarnished opinion triggers defensiveness in the writer, who dismisses
Jamal’s conclusion, thereby shutting down any further communication. Point
value: -2]
- 32 -
Peer Group #2: Marissa and Sam
[Invention Stage comments from Marissa & Sam]
[Scene 7: Comment #1: Marissa]
I loved your thesis! It's so short and to the point.
[Scene 7: Response #1]
You say:
a) Is the thesis too short? Do you think it sums up the main points that I highlighted in my
outline?
Marissa's Response: Hmm, let me look. You have so many good points here. Your
thesis says that "America's biggest dream is to be famous," but it doesn't mention some of
these other great points. I'd add them in maybe to flesh out the thesis some more. Good
call!
[This response reassures Marissa that the author can handle constructive criticism
and poses a specific (albeit yes-or-no) question to draw out more feedback. Point
value: +1]
b) Thanks. I like it too! Did you see the episode I was talking about? The Los Angeles
auditions?
Marissa's Response: Yeah, it was amazing. So funny!
[This response moves the discussion from critical peer review to off-topic
conversation, deflecting any further useful feedback. Point value: -2]
- 33 -
c) Thanks. I was trying to get a lot of ideas into one sentence and I'm not sure I did it. I'm
trying to say that the show is popular because everyone wants to be famous and that's a
twist on the American Dream and the voting makes it seem democratic, but really it's a
set-up because some of contestants aren't talented.
Marissa's Response: That is such an interesting take on it. Your paper's going to be
great.
[The author suspects the thesis isn’t capturing all he or she wants to say, and
restates the ideas that he or she would like to include, but doesn’t specifically ask for
help integrating them. Point value: -1]
d) I'm glad you liked the thesis. Can you help me think of ways to improve it? I want to
make sure it follows the assignment and covers my main points.
Marissa's Response: Thesis statements are totally hard. I like yours the way it is, but it
would be great to get in the stuff about how fame can twist people's values and make
them do stupid things, you know? More picking stuff apart. Right now it seems kind of
descriptive and I know I've gotten in trouble for that.
[This response accepts Marissa’s compliment and then tries to elicit specific,
constructive feedback. It refers to the assignment and the paper and gives Marissa a
framework in which to respond critically. Point value: +2]
[Comment #2: Sam]
Not all of the ideas in this outline contribute to your thesis. You should edit this way
down so that you can tackle the first draft with less extraneous stuff.
[Response #2]
You say:
a) Thanks, but I have a pretty clear idea of how I'm going to use all of this stuff. I'm
surprised you can't see how it all goes together.
Sam's Response: Right, well, good luck with that.
[Sam, who is confident of his own writing skills, can become impatient when his
peers’ work doesn’t live up to his high standards. Here, he goes straight to the point
and comes off sounding brusque. However, the writer’s defensive response only
shuts down conversation. Point value: -2]
- 34 -
b) Yeah, I see what you mean. At this stage, I just wanted to get everything down that
was interesting. Can you point out a couple of things that don't help the thesis?
Sam's Response: Sure. The point about your mom crying when Jennifer Hudson
performed doesn't help you prove that fame is the American Dream. The point about
people liking to watch because it's a circus or a freak show might go too far—you want to
argue that these are "ordinary" people who get humiliated.
[The writer invites further help and directs Sam’s efforts by asking him to identify
unnecessary material. However, the writer shows less appreciation and engagement
than in d, the +2 response. Point value: +1]
c) At this stage, I just wanted to get everything down that was interesting. I'm planning
on revising this, but I haven't figured out what I want to keep yet. [-1]
Sam's Response: Okay, well let us know when you figure it out.
[Light in tone, the writer’s response implies that he or she isn’t serious about
revision. Nor does the author solicit any advice from Sam. This response is
especially off-putting for Sam, who is serious about writing. Point value: -1]
d) That's a really good point. I've been thinking about that too. I was going to keep the
main points about American Idol making fools out of ordinary people and about it
twisting our values. I think everything else can go. What do you think? [+2]
Sam's Response: It's great that you thought this through. I agree, but I'd add that your
point about the audience is also important. It would help support your claim that America
is obsessed with fame. Even the audience gets sucked in. Also, the idea that some
contestants do become famous amps up the craziness.
[This response is appreciative and thoughtful and poses a specific question to
deepen the dialogue. By praising Sam’s comment and sharing his or her thoughts on
the matter, the writer lets Sam know he or she values his help and is ready to
collaborate. Peer reviewers are more willing to bring their energy to the session
when the writer shows effort and seriousness—and this is especially true of Sam, a
serious writer himself. Asking Sam for help thinking through each main point
invites specific and thorough feedback. Point value: +2]
[Scene 9: Comment #3: Marissa]
I love that quote from Paula Abdul!
- 35 -
[Scene 9: Response #3]
You say:
a) Me too! Why did you like it? Can you give me some advice on how I could use it?
Marissa's Response: I like it because it really captures the gist of what you are trying to
say. I've seen quotes like this right at the top of the paper. I think that would be a good
spot for it.
[The writer asks Marissa to substantiate her general comment and makes a specific
request for advice . Such a “tell me more” approach is especially useful for
reviewers like Marissa (and Jamal), whose initial feedback is often vague or general.
Overall, this is a good comment that elicits useful feedback but keeps the discussion
narrow, focused on the single quote. Point value: +1]
b) Thanks! I'm glad you like it. I think it totally sums things up.
Marissa's Response: Yes, it's a great quote.
[Agreeing with Marissa and accepting her compliment is fine, but if Marissa is not
pushed to get critical or elaborate on her positive feedback, she’ll try to get away
with giving only general praise, for that’s where she’s most comfortable. Point
value: -1]
c) Thanks, I love that quote too. What did you think of the other quotes? I'm trying to
figure out how to use them in the paper. Any ideas?
Marissa's Response: I liked all of your quotes. You could use the last two in section
four, where you talk about fame twisting values. I would put the Paula Abdul quote at the
top of your paper because it sums up your main points and sets the stage well for the
paper.
[The author thanks Marissa for her compliment, then asks for advice on using all
three quotations in the paper, channeling Marissa’s praise and advice into useful
feedback. Point value: +2]
d) Yeah! Can you believe she said that?
Marissa's Response: She's so tiny! I wonder if she diets all the time. Maybe if she ate
more she'd be a little less spacey? What do you think?
[This casual and chatty response leads the conversation entirely off track. Point
value: -2]
- 36 -
[Scene 10: Comment #4: Sam]
Your outline doesn't offer a clear path for your essay. Disregarding the usual format, like
you've done here, makes for a confusing start. It would take a lot to fix this one.
[Scene 10: Response #4.]
You say:
a) Good point—I was just getting everything down and I didn't think about organization.
Maybe I could start by describing the show, then talk about the American Dream, and
how the show is a twist on it. What do you think?
Sam's Response: I like your idea for how to reorganize, starting with a description of
how the show functions as kind of an American Dream and then showing how actually
it's very different, and ending with the point about the audience last. I think that could
work.
[Sam loves to be right and will go the extra mile to get his ideas recognized. The
author gets him into his or her corner by affirming his insights, then presses him for
specific, useful advice. Point value: +2]
b) Well, you have your way of doing it and I have mine.
Sam's Response: True! And just ‘cause my way is right and yours is wrong doesn't mean
you have to change.
[Sam’s comment is frustrating and implies the author’s outline is beyond hope. The
author’s emotional response is natural, but effectively shuts down the conversation.
Point value: -2]
c) I used highlighting to set off main points and I organized them in a way that made
sense to me, but I can see how it might have confused you.
Sam's Response: I wasn't confused. I was unimpressed.
[The writer acknowledges possible confusion, but seems to locate that confusion in
Sam rather than in the paper. This does nothing to disarm Sam. Nor does the writer
pose a question or ask for specific feedback. Point value: -1]
d) Can you help with what I've got so far? I set off the main points with highlighting and
am thinking about rearranging some of the sections, maybe putting the audience section
last. What do you think?
- 37 -
Sam's Response: Like I said, I could give you better feedback if you had outlined this
more clearly. But yes, ending with the audience part is a good idea. You haven't said how
you are going to rearrange the sections so I can't really comment on that.
[The writer invites Sam’s help and opinions, but in a rather vague and
noncommittal way. The writer’s half-hearted talk of “rearranging some sections”
and “maybe putting the audience section last” does not inspire Sam to invest energy
in a response. Point value: +1]
Peer Group #3: Evie and Liane
[Invention Stage comments from Evie & Liane]
[Scene 7: Comment #1: Evie]
What are you saying the show's message is? I can't tell from the outline at all.
[Scene 7: Response #1]
You say:
a) How could you miss it? It's right here, in my thesis: "American Idol shows America's
biggest dream is to be famous."
Evie's Response: Well, I didn't miss your point, but I think you missed mine.
[The writer’s defensive response to Evie’s frank initial comment does nothing to
draw Evie out. Point value: -2]
- 38 -
b) American Idol proves how much everyone loves fame. It's a twist on the American
Dream, which is about fairness and democracy and working hard for real things like
home and family.
Evie's Response: Yeah, so put that in the paper.
[While this response answers Evie’s question, it only uses her as a sounding board
and doesn’t attempt to elicit further information from her. Point value: -1]
c) Wow, sounds like my message isn't coming across. Can you help me figure out what
the problem is? Like, where and why you felt lost?
Evie's Response: I felt lost right at the beginning. You say that American Idol shows that
America's biggest dream is to be famous. But that's not the only idea you've got going in
your main points. You either need to focus on that one idea and find stuff to back it up, or
you need to mention your other main points in your thesis.
[This response mirrors Evie’s comment and asks an open-ended question that
invites her help. Asking an open-ended question, as opposed to a yes-or-no question,
is an effective peer review tactic, especially for a reviewer like Evie, who thinks the
paper is the writer’s responsibility and may be reluctant to offer help if she’s not
asked a specific question. Point value: +2]
d) I want to show that American Idol is exploiting our love of fame and at the same time
judging us morally for wanting fame. Do I have support for that in my outline?
Evie's Response: You have support for it in your outline, but you need a better thesis,
one that weaves ALL of your main points together and explains how the show does what
you say it does.
[The writer restates the thesis and asks Evie to confirm whether the thesis is
supported in the outline. By asking a yes-or-no question, the writer leaves
elaboration at Evie’s discretion, which is risky, since volunteering assistance isn’t
Evie’s style. Point value: +1]
[Comment #2: Liane]
You have so many good ideas in this outline. Do you know which ones you are going to
focus on when you write your draft?
[Response #2]
You say:
- 39 -
a) Thanks, I'm glad you like the outline. I think I will need all of this stuff if I'm going to
fill up two pages, right?
Liane's Response: Yeah, that's probably true.
[Liane’s comment reflects her lack of confidence in her own writing and peer review
skills, and the author’s response doesn’t assure Liane that she has something to say
or that the author wants to hear it. In addition, the response indicates that the
author doesn’t have a clear grasp of the assignment: filling pages is not the goal.
Point value: -2]
b) Yeah, I should probably edit this down. When I was taking notes in the library I just
put everything in that seemed interesting. Which ideas did you like best?
Liane's Response: Well, I loved that point about your mom crying when Jennifer
Hudson performed. I did too. She's fabulous. Did you see her in Dream Girls?
[The writer misdirects the conversation by inviting Liane to give her opinion about
which ideas seem interesting, rather than to help identify which ideas support the
thesis. Point value: -1]
c) Yeah, I should probably edit this down. When I was taking notes at the library, I just
put in everything that seemed interesting. Which ideas do you think work best with my
thesis?
Liane's Response: Let me look. Wow, that's a really hard question. Some of these ideas
don't go with your thesis that "American Idol shows America's biggest dream is to be
famous," but the ideas seem important anyway. Like the way the audience judges
contestants and the way fame twists our values. Maybe those could go in your thesis
somehow.
[The writer’s comment in c is almost identical to that in b, with an important
difference: the writer asks Liane which ideas work best with the thesis, rather than
which ideas are most interesting. Rather than merely asking Liane to share her likes
and dislikes, as in b, the writer directs Liane’s attention back to the paper, asking
her to consider the thesis in relation to the ideas in the outline. Point value: +2]
d) I want to focus on the idea that American Idol makes fools out of ordinary people and
that fame ruins our morals and values. Do you think my main points do that? Or maybe
only some do? [+1]
- 40 -
Liane's Response: That's a good focus! I think your main points do help with that,
although you're right, not all of them. Maybe eliminate the ones that don't? That would
help streamline things, I think.
[The writer answers Liane’s question, stating two ideas that he or she would like to
focus on, and asks Liane whether those ideas are reflected in the outline. On its own,
a yes-or-no question such as this one might not elicit much feedback from Liane, but
the additional suggestion that only some of his or her points support the thesis is a
self-critique that invites Liane to offer her own constructive criticism. Point value:
+1]
[Scene 9: Comment #3: Evie]
Evie: I like the quotes, but you didn't use any of them in your outline.
[Scene 9: Response #3]
You say:
a) Yeah, I didn't really know how to use them. I get all mixed up trying to do internal
citations and stuff.
Evie's Response: It really doesn't take, like, talent or anything.
[The writer begs off responsibility by saying that he or she doesn’t know how to
format citations, when in fact Evie’s comment has to do with content—how to use
the quotes to support the main points in the outline. Ducking responsibility is
especially deadly with Evie, who is sure not to engage if the writer doesn’t. Point
value: -2]
b) True. Where do you think I should use them?
Evie's Response: I think it's your job to figure that out.
[While this might not be a bad response with another reviewer, it won’t get the
writer anywhere with Evie. Evie needs to see that the writer is pulling his or her
own weight—not merely fishing for solutions. Point value: -1]
c) I was going to put that Paula Abdul quote at the top. And the quote about the middle
school students with the last main point. Does that cover my main points?
- 41 -
Evie's Response: That's only two quotes. I think you need something to show how the
show makes fools out of ordinary people. And you should figure out where the "voting"
quote should go. It's a pretty cool idea but you have to weave it in somehow.
[The author takes charge of figuring out where the quotes should go, inspiring Evie
to engage. The writer also asks Evie to address the critical question of coverage—
Are the main points supported?—in addition to the question of placement. Point
value: +2]
d) I was thinking about using the Paula Abdul quote in my thesis and I was going to put a
few other quotes before each one of my main points. What do you think?
Evie's Response: Putting a quote before each main point is kind of lame. You should
figure out how to weave them into the paper. I like the Paula Abdul quote because it
really sums up your main points, but the thesis should be in your own words.
[The author displays a good-faith effort to take charge in this response, but makes a
flawed suggestion, not having considered the larger question of which ideas need
support. This makes it easier for Evie to default to her standard reply, “You figure
it out.” Point value: +1]
[Scene 10: Comment #4: Liane]
Maybe it's just me, but I can't follow the outline. It doesn't really flow.
[Scene 10: Response #4.]
You say:
a) I hadn't really thought about that. Getting things to flow is pretty hard.
Liane's Response: Yeah, and I'm not sure how you would do it. Sorry!
[While this is a thoughtful response to Liane’s comment, it doesn’t contain a
question or clarification to help her focus her advice. The author and Liane are both
overwhelmed, and stay that way. Point value: -1]
b) Flow? It's just an outline—they don't really flow. It's stream of consciousness.
Liane's Response: Oh, sorry. I kind of thought outlines were supposed to be organized
like papers. But maybe you're right.
[This comment dismisses Liane’s concern, causing her to back down from her
legitimate point. Point value: -2]
- 42 -
c) What if I rearrange the outline, put the audience section last, the point about the show
making fools of people first, and the other points about fame in the middle. Would that
make more sense?
Liane's Response: Yeah, I think it would. When you describe it like that, I can see the
logic to the ideas, you know? It feels more like one moves into the other in a natural way.
And maybe move the idea about how it's okay to be ordinary to the end. That feels like a
concluding thought.
[The writer addresses Liane’s question and invites Liane to offer an assessment
rather than invent a solution or parse a complicated list of queries. This is an
effective approach to Liane, who can be easily intimidated but can also offer honest
feedback to material presented to her. Point value: +2]
d) When you say "it didn't really flow," do you mean that you couldn't follow my
argument? What if I made the argument clearer in the thesis—would that help?
Liane's Response: Yeah, that would help a lot. I mean, first you really have to figure out
what you're arguing—right now it's not that obvious. Are you saying that it's bad that the
show pretends to represent the American Dream but actually does something different?
[The vague thesis is problematic, but it’s not the outline’s only problem. By focusing
on the thesis alone, the writer invites Liane to stay local, too. Liane probably won’t
go out on a limb to broaden the dialogue’s scope. The temptation is too great for her
to say, “Yes, revise the thesis. That will fix everything!” Point value: +1]
[Scene 11: final response from author pops up, after 5 seconds, it fades and the final evaluation
pops up]
Thanks, guys that gives me some good stuff to work with.
[Scene 11: Final Evaluation]
[Message displaying in the final screen will be determined by the Meter reading.]
[If meter reads – 8 through – 4 then Evaluation 1 displays]
Oops, your Feedback Meter is too low. Remember, to improve your paper you need help
from your peers. Motivate them to give you good revision ideas. Think about effective
- 43 -
ways to approach each individual for the best response. Review the Best Practices for
more hints and play again to improve your score.
Play Again
End Game
[If meter reads – 3 through 0 then Evaluation 2 displays]
Not bad, but you didn't receive very much useful feedback. You can do better. Look over
the Best Practices once again and think about how to take control of the peer review
session, guide the conversation, and inspire your peers to take a closer look at your paper.
You're on the right track. Play again to improve your skills!
Play Again
End Game
[If meter reads + 1 through + 4 then Evaluation 3 displays]
Well done. Your Feedback Meter shows that you have negotiating skills that can turn
okay feedback into great feedback. But there is still room for improvement. You haven't
quite mastered the art of finessing your peers. Review their personality profiles and think
about Best Practices. Then play again for an even higher score.
Play Again
End Game
[If meter reads + 5 through + 8 then Evaluation 4 displays]
Excellent! You used your powers of negotiation to turn okay feedback into great
feedback. Test your mastery by choosing another peer group. Once you've learned how to
work with everyone, try another writing stage.
Play Again
End Game
["Play Again" sends player back to "Choices" interface. "End Game" quits out of the game and
closes the window]
- 44 -
Annotated Script for First Draft Stage
[Scene 6: Peer Group assembled. Speech bubble coming from author]
You say:
Hi. I've got an extra copy of my draft if anyone needs it.
Hand out a copy. [clicking on "Hand out a copy" causes paper to pop-up]
[Read paper pop-up window]
Print
Continue Playing
Assignment: Do a close reading or analysis of an advertisement, a film, a song, a Web
site, a television show, or some other form of media. Discuss the impact the piece had on
you and how its elements worked together to send a message. Click to read full
assignment.
Message from the Instructor: In the first draft stage, ask your peer reviewers to
comment on the overall effectiveness of your essay by evaluating how well the
introduction (beginning), thesis (summary of main point), body (middle), and
conclusion (ending) are organized and constructed. Ask them to consider whether each
reason you give for your position is supported adequately, with properly cited evidence
such as quotations, paraphrases, or summaries.
First Draft for American Idol
"Anybody can be famous now. It's like a disease."
American Idol is like a "stage" for the American Dream. The American Dream
said: "with hard work, anyone can be a success." American Idol pretends to have the
same message but actually laughs at people who try but don't have talent. American Idol
shows how today America's biggest dream is fame.
If American Idol showed the message of the American Dream it would reward all
people who would work hard. But instead it makes fools out of people who try but don't
have talent. "I think they pick the worst people in the beginning just to demean and
embarrass them. It's sick." For example in Season Six the audition episode. The camera
showed all the worst contestants including a guy who snarled like a cat while crawling on
- 45 -
the stage and several really bad singers. The singers got down on their knees and cried
and begged him to let them go on because it was their dream. Simon was mean to all of
them to add to the entertainment value of the show.
American Idol is not a good show for this country even though it pretends that to
be—just look at it's name. It encourages us at home to laugh at people trying to be
famous and also encourages us to want to be famous a vicious cycle. There is nothing
wrong with being ordinary and we should be okay with the fact that we're ordinary
without having to watch people humiliating themselves. That makes us as bad as Simon
even if we don't realize it. And of course sometimes people do make it in the real world
after getting onto the show. Jennifer Hudson and Kelly Clarkson are both very talented
and now have very good careers and it's good that they could get known by a big
audience. But that doesn't mean just anyone who gets on the show is going to make it
even though that's what the show pretends is true for example because some people win
the lottery doesn't mean everyone can but people lose lots of money trying.
And now everyone wants to. The auditioning girls who cried and begged Simon
were typical. Are generation would rather be famous than anything—43% of girls would
rather be a personal assistant to a celebrity than a CEO or president. This is a serious
problem in are society. Also more people voted for American Idol than for President of
the USA.
[Scene 6: Peer Group introduction. Speech bubble above Jamal, Sam, or Liane]
Great, let's get started.
Continue Playing
- 46 -
Peer Group #1: Alec and Jamal
[First Draft Stage comments from Alec & Jamal]
[Scene 7: Comment #1: Alec]
The opening is kind of boring. It doesn't really grab my attention.
[Scene 7: Response #1]
You say:
a) Yeah, I never know what to do with intros. Do you have ideas?
Alec's Response: Not really, actually I hate writing them. I try to go right to the thesis.
[The writer’s response is the equivalent of a shrug. It’s not a defensive conversationstopper, but neither is it a focused conversation-starter. The writer agrees the intro
is boring, but doesn’t invest energy in considering ways to improve it. Alec needs
energy and direction from the writer; otherwise, he shrugs, too. Point value: -1]
b) You think so? I like it the way it is. The intro isn't the most important part of the
paper anyway.
Alec's Response: Maybe that's true. Yeah, I guess you could leave it.
[This response dismisses Alec’s legitimate (though perhaps undiplomatically
worded) point, shutting down dialogue. Point value: -2]
- 47 -
c) I guess you're right—it is sort of bland. I was thinking about pushing the metaphor of
the stage a little bit more? Would that help give you a mental picture? [+1]
Alec's Response: You mean, like, describing what the stage looks like? Yeah. Intros are
supposed to help grab the reader's attention, so giving readers something to picture is a
good idea. Especially ‘cause the Idol stage is so overdecorated and kind of crazy looking.
[The writer offers an idea for Alec to play with and pushes for his opinion, though
he or she does so with a yes-or-no question, which keeps Alec’s response narrow.
Point value: +1]
d) The professor always says to open with something concrete and descriptive and
interesting. You've seen the show—what grabs your attention? The visuals, maybe? [+2]
Alec's Response: The visuals, yeah—the way the stage is all decked out. Also the bizarro
characters get me. I like to see what they are going to do and I always hope Simon will
say something crazy. Basically the show is like a circus! But it's all set up to look like it
could be taken seriously. That's kind of interesting; maybe you could explore that.
[The writer asks Alec an open-ended, yet focused question: What about the show
grabs your attention? By welcoming Alec’s collaboration and directing his energy,
the writer shows that he or she values Alec’s input and is invested enough to guide
the discussion. This is an especially good tactic for Alec, who is happy to dialogue,
but won’t do so unless invited to and given direction. Point value: +2]
[Comment #2: Jamal]
So your thesis seems to be about how fame is the new American Dream but this new
dream is not as reliable as the old one—it's sort of a mirage. Is that right?
[Response #2]
You say:
a) You know, I never try to nail down my thesis until the very last second. That way, if I
want to change it, I have the flexibility. [-2]
Jamal's Response: Sounds like you may have a problem with commitment.
[Flexibility is great, but the paper needs a spine: without one, it can’t take shape.
The author’s refusal to “nail down” the thesis shows not a desire for flexibility but a
lack of motivation, since clarifying the thesis now doesn’t preclude revising it later.
This is an especially off-putting response for Jamal, who dislikes uncertainty and
hesitation. Point value: -2]
- 48 -
b) I don't really know what my thesis is. Do you think it's that, or that American Idol uses
everyone's desire to be famous to make people look ridiculous? [+1]
Jamal's Response: It seems like your thesis is more about the new American Dream, but
before you go further you really have to figure out what you want to argue.
[This comment acknowledges the paper’s lack of a clear thesis and pushes Jamal for
more feedback. However, Jamal is turned off by uncertainty, and he is disinclined to
engage with this wishy-washy response. Point value: +1]
c) Yes, that's more or less what I'm trying to argue. How could I make that clearer? [+2]
Jamal's Response: You could contrast the old American Dream of working hard and
getting rewarded, which was basically real, with the new one of getting to be famous,
which is an illusion, as unlikely as winning the lottery.
[The writer confirms Jamal’s reading of the thesis, asserting that indeed this is the
argument he or she would like to make. The writer then gives Jamal a focused task
by asking him to help clarify the thesis. Point value: +2]
d) Yeah, that's basically right! I'm glad you got it. [-1]
Jamal's Response: Great.
[This comment shuts off further discussion. It confirms Jamal’s reading of the
thesis but doesn’t probe for better, or any, feedback. Point value: -1]
[Scene 9: Comment #3: Alec]
I see that you put some of the sources in, which is good, but why haven't you cited them?
If you don't, it's plagiarism.
[Scene 9: Response #3]
You say:
a) Wow, you can get accused of plagiarism just for that? How do I fix that? [+1]
Alec's Response: Yeah, you have to be really careful to cite sources and have a Works
Cited page.
- 49 -
[The writer accepts Alec’s assessment and indicates that he or she is willing to fix
the mistake by asking Alec how in the most general terms. Point value: +1]
b) Teachers don't actually care about plagiarism! It's just a scare tactic. [-2]
Alec's Response: They definitely care. I know a kid who had to take Freshman Comp
over again. But suit yourself.
[This comment is argumentative, not to mention incorrect. It both obstructs the
writer’s own efforts and damages his or her rapport with Alec. Point value: -2]
c) How should I cite them? In the text itself with parentheses or a Works Cited page?
And do you think I have a good number already or should I use more? [+2]
Alec's Response: I think you need to do both; after all, having a Works Cited page can't
hurt. And sure, use more quotes. You have some good ones and they only make your case
stronger. Maybe you can find more viewer reactions on the Internet.
[This response asks for specifics and broadens the question to address the number
of quotations. It shows the author is eager to learn and causes Alec to relax and
open up. Point value: +2]
d) It isn't plagiarism. I used quotations marks. Plagiarism is something else. [-1]
Alec's Response: All right, but if I were you, I wouldn't take chances.
[The writer dismisses Alec’s valid comment, missing the opportunity to remedy his
or her faulty documentation. Point value: -1]
[Scene 10: Comment #4: Jamal]
Your conclusion is missing something.
[Scene 10: Response #4.]
You say:
a) Missing something? What do you mean? Can you be more specific? [+1]
Jamal's Response: I don't know. I can't really tell you—more information, maybe? A
sense that it's wrapping up the whole paper and addressing the points raised in the thesis?
It just doesn't feel right to me.
- 50 -
[The author mirrors Jamal’s comment as a question ("Missing something?") and
asks for more information. This shows Jamal that the author values his feedback:
he is grappling with what Jamal has said and wants Jamal to go deeper. Point value:
+1]
b) Conclusions are so frustrating. At some point I just want to end the paper and I leave it
there, just like that. [-1]
Jamal's Response: I know what you mean. But that's probably not the best strategy.
[The writer acknowledges that the conclusion needs work, but chooses to vent his
frustration about it rather than seek a solution. Giving up when faced with a
challenge is poor form in peer review. Point value: -1]
c) Can you be more specific? Do you think it should be longer, or more detailed? I guess
it does end kind of abruptly. [+2]
Jamal's Response: Yeah. I'm not sure why you chose to end the paper where you do. It
seems like you're still in the middle of making your argument. Why not move that
paragraph up into the body of your paper and end on a more relevant note like your
thoughts on how being ordinary is okay?
[The writer recruits Jamal’s help, directing his efforts by offering two possible
solutions to what he or she acknowledges as the paper’s abrupt end: making it
longer, or more detailed. Questions that offer options are an important tool in a
writer’s toolbox at peer review time. Options help demarcate the field, giving
reviewers a place to begin—or depart from. They also show engagement and a
willingness to work on the author’s part. They are especially useful for reviewers
like Jamal, who are reluctant to go deeper unless given directed encouragement.
Point value: +2]
d) In conclusion, I'd like to say: American Idol rocks! [-2]
Jamal's Response: Actually, I don't think that conclusion really fits your paper.
[This is a class-clown response that takes energy away from productive discussion.
Point value: -2]
--------------
- 51 -
Peer Group #2: Marissa and Sam
[First Draft Stage comments from Marissa & Sam]
[Scene 7: Comment #1: Marissa]
I like your opening!
[Scene 7: Response #1]
You say:
a) Thanks, but I feel like something is missing. I was thinking about adding details, but I
don't know what would be interesting. What do you like most about the show? [-1]
Marissa's Response: I love those awesome moments when the good singers are
performing like when Jennifer Hudson was on. It can be so moving.
[In an attempt to elicit more feedback, the author makes the mistake of directing
Marissa’s attention to what she likes, rather than what will work best for the paper.
Point value: -1]
b) Thanks. The professor is always talking about making sure the title and the intro really
grab your attention. I could use some suggestions for improvement. Any specific
thoughts? [+1]
Marissa's Response: Well, now that you mention it, maybe the intro could use some
exciting details and a catchier title. Maybe use some of those examples from your outline
- 52 -
of people like Marilyn Monroe or the President, people who represent the American
Dream coming true—or talk about how the show looks like it's July 4th.
[It’s important for Marissa to be assured that she won’t hurt the writer’s feelings if
she suggests changes. Here, by actively seeking out Marissa’s ideas, the writer gives
Marissa license to make suggestions. Asking for suggestions to make the title and
intro more attention-grabbing gives Marissa a starting point, though even more
direction might elicit better feedback. Point value: +1]
c) It came out okay, but I didn't spend too much time on it since I figure nothing will ever
be as great as "Call me Ishmael" or whatever so why try? [-2]
Marissa's Response: That's kind of depressing. I know what you mean.
[This dispiriting response misses the point of peer review, which is to improve
what’s there, not compare work against unmatchable standards. Even if the author
is trying to be funny, the response kills the conversation. Point value: -2]
d) Thanks. Can you help think of ways to improve it? Maybe a visual description of the
show would grab the reader's attention. Do you think I should focus on the stage, the
performers, or the judges? [+2]
Marissa's Response: Well, you mention that American Idol is like a "stage" for the
American Dream so maybe you should describe the stage. I love the way it looks—the
lights, the colors, it's like the Fourth of July!
[The writer directs Marissa’s feedback by suggesting a “visual description of the
show” and giving her a choice of three possible visuals: the stage, the performers, or
the judges. This directed question is prefaced by a “maybe,” showing that the
author is open to other possibilities, and an open-ended request for help (“Can you
help think of ways to improve it?”). Thus the writer offers direction while staying
receptive: the invitation is there for Marissa to weigh in on one of the three
suggested ideas, if she chooses; but she’s also welcome to take another tack. Point
value: +2]
[Comment #2: Sam]
You have to clarify your thesis. I mean, where do you actually articulate it in one
sentence?
[Response #2]
You say:
- 53 -
a) What do you mean, "articulate"? I think my thesis comes across if you read the paper.
[-1]
Sam's Response: Why do you bother going through Peer Review if you can't take a
suggestion?
[The writer takes umbrage at Sam’s high-toned comment, and responds defensively,
shutting down conversation. Point value: -1]
b) Good point. Do you see my thesis implied anywhere? Can you help me figure out what
it should be? [+2]
Sam's Response: I see parts of your thesis scattered through the first few paragraphs,
especially here: "American Idol is like a stage for the American Dream" and "If American
Idol showed the message of the American Dream it would reward all people who would
work hard. But instead it makes fools out of people who try but don't have talent."
[By asking Sam to identify where he “sees” the thesis implied, the writer directs
attention back to the paper, giving Sam an opportunity to point to particular
language that might be refined and combined to form a thesis. Point value: +2]
c) Should I do something to make it clearer? [+1]
Sam's Response: Yeah. You should try to condense your various ideas about American
Idol and the American Dream into one sentence and put it in your introduction.
[This response signals that the author is open to making changes, but it does so with
a tentative, yes-or-no question that Sam has already answered (with the comment
“You have to do something to clarify your thesis.”) With another reviewer, this
response might simply be a dead-end. However, Sam is especially motivated by
having his insights affirmed. A simple echo of Sam’s comment welcomes his
elaboration. Point value: +1]
d) I read in In Touch Weekly that one-sentence thesis statements are so 2006. [-2]
Sam's Response: See, these are the things I miss by only reading The Economist.
[Although cute, this flippant response demonstrates an unwillingness to take peer
review and peer reviewers seriously. The truth is, clarity never goes out of style.
Point value: -2]
[Scene 9: Comment #3: Marissa]
- 54 -
I see that you put some of the sources in. That's really good—they're great quotes! Do
you think you should add citations and a Works Cited page? I think it might be
plagiarism if you don't.
[Scene 9: Response #3]
You say:
a) That's true. The professor gets really annoyed about plagiarism. I heard that a student
last semester failed because of it. Can you remember how to cite stuff? It's so
complicated. [+1]
Marissa's Response: Yeah, you have to be really careful. Usually it's good, I think, to
have them in the paper itself and then also have a Works Cited page, but check your book
to make I get confused about it too.
[The writer affirms Marissa’s comment, acknowledging the consequences of not
adhering to documentation guidelines, and asks for Marissa’s help. The writer
shows a willingness to fix the problem, though his or her tone is sluggish—he or she
seems tired just thinking about the prospect of learning the rules of documentation
(“It's so complicated.”) Point value: +1]
b) How should I cite them? In the text itself with parentheses or a Works Cited page?
And do you think I have a good number already or should I use more? [+2]
Marissa's Response: I think you need to do both; after all, having a Works Cited page
can't hurt. And sure, use more quotes. You have some good ones and they only make
your case stronger. Maybe you can find more viewer reactions on the Internet.
[This response asks for specifics and broadens the question to address the number
of quotations. It shows the author is eager to learn and encourages Marissa to relax
and open up. Point value: +2]
c) Nah, I don't think that's necessary. That's just for really serious research papers. [-1]
Marissa's Response: Oh, okay. I guess I overdo it then, because I always make a Works
Cited page, just in case.
[The writer dismisses Marissa’s concern, not taking the time to find out why she
might have thought the writer’s source use was incorrect and missing the
opportunity to remedy his or her faulty documentation. Point value: -1]
d) Teachers don't actually care about plagiarism! That's just a scare tactic. [-2]
- 55 -
Marissa's Response: Really? I could have sworn it was super important.
[The writer stridently contradicts Marissa, causing her to back off an important
observation. Point value: -2]
[Scene 10: Comment #4: Sam]
Your conclusion is lacking. Shouldn't it involve some more intensive thought, some
definitive statement on the phenomenon? You fade away there at the end.
[Scene 10: Response #4.]
You say:
a) Yeah, you may be right. I wanted to say more but I was at the word limit. It was
frustrating—I wasn't sure how I should end the paper at all. What would you suggest?
[+2]
Sam's Response: This part earlier feels more like a conclusion to me: "It encourages us
at home to laugh at people trying to be famous and also encourages us to want to be
famous a vicious cycle. There is nothing wrong with being ordinary and we should be
okay with the fact that we're ordinary without having to watch people humiliating
themselves."
[The writer affirms Sam’s concerns and then asks a purely open-ended question—
that is, one that offers no options for the reviewer to reflect on (“end it this way or
that way?”) but merely invites his opinion. This is good tactic for Sam: he is the
kind of reviewer who needs affirmation and enjoys the respected-adviser role. Point
value: +2]
b) I totally agree with you! If by "fade away," you mean, "have the best conclusion
ever." [-2]
Sam's Response: Um, I think I just mean "fade away."
[Sam does not take kindly to foolishness. The writer shows an unwillingness to take
the peer review process seriously—a sure way to get Sam to write him or her off.
Point value: -2]
c) Fade away? How? [+1]
Sam's Response: Well, your last sentence says, "Also more people voted for American
Idol than for President of the USA." You don't address the significance of that, what that
means for our society—you just leave us hanging.
- 56 -
[The writer mirrors Sam’s comment as a question and asks him to elaborate. This
yields useful, albeit narrow feedback—the focus stays on what’s wrong with the
conclusion rather than how to improve it. Point value: +1]
d) That's not fair. I think there is plenty of intensive thought; I worked hard on this paper.
[-1]
Sam's Response: I didn't mean to be mean. I just felt there should be more substance to
your conclusion.
[The writer is hurt by Sam’s comment, and shows it. Giving in to an emotional
reaction during peer review only puts a hitch in communication. Point value: -1]
- 57 -
Peer Group #3: Evie and Liane
[First Draft Stage comments from Evie & Liane]
[Scene 7: Comment #1: Evie]
Your opening could be more descriptive and interesting and really lead into your paper
more than it does.
[Scene 7: Response #1]
You say:
a) That's a good point. I was thinking about opening with a description of the stage to
help put the reader in the action. What do you think? [+2]
Evie's Response: Well, you say that it is like a stage set for the American Dream, so
putting the actual stage in your intro seems like a good concept and a strong metaphor.
Go into it more. What does the stage look like? What function does it serve? Why a
stage, anyway?
[The writer gives Evie a specific idea to respond to. This is a good tactic, since Evie
appreciates when writers take charge of their paper and the peer review session by
soundboarding their ideas and asking directed questions. Point value: +2]
b) Good point! Yeah, I totally see what you mean. Do you see other places where I could
add interest? [+1]
- 58 -
Evie's Response: Yes, work on the title. Come up with something catchy and interesting
that describes what the paper is about.
[Evie says the opening could be more descriptive and interesting. This is a great
chance for the writer to reflect on what alchemy might transform the opening—
what image or idea might wake it up?—but the writer instead changes the subject,
eliciting good feedback from another angle, but leaving the question of the opening
still unanswered. Point value: +1]
c) I tried to capture the feeling of American Idol, but sounds like I missed. Maybe you
could help me brainstorm a new intro. What's your overall impression of the show? [-1]
Evie's Response: Personally, I hate the show. It celebrates the cheesiest American music
and encourages a bunch of no-talent hacks who just want to be famous. I would
dramatize the awfulness of it more and how fake it is. That's not really coming across.
[Although this comment engages Evie, it causes her to get lost in her rant about the
show. Asking a reviewer how he or she feels about a subject isn’t as effective as
asking about the paper. Point value: -1]
d) I talk about the message of American Idol and about the stage. That is really all I need
to do in the intro. [-2]
Evie's Response: Okay, well, if we're done here, I'm going to go to tennis.
[The writer’s defensiveness gives Evie an excuse to disengage. Point value: -2]
[Comment #2: Liane]
I think there should be more emotion in your main argument, you know? More of how
you feel about all of this.
[Response #2]
You say:
a) That's interesting—I'm not used to thinking about emotion in school papers. How do
you think I should put that in? [+1]
Liane's Response: You definitely could at least in the intro and the conclusion. Talk
about how the show comes across to you and what you think it's doing to our culture.
- 59 -
[The writer indicates that his or her initial reaction is to disagree, but shows Liane
that he or she is open to considering her advice by asking how the suggestion might
be implemented. Point value: +1]
b) Hm. Maybe I'll consider it. [-1]
Liane's Response: Great!
[With an unconvincing maybe I’ll consider it, the writer dismisses Liane’s
suggestion. Disagreeing with a reviewer’s suggestion after considering it is fine, but
dismissing it out of hand stops communication and keeps the writer closed to
possible new perspectives that he or she didn’t see at first. Point value: -1]
c) No way. I put my personal feelings about Jessica Simpson in the last paper I wrote
and I did really badly. It was awful. I'm never going there again. [-2]
Liane's Response: I'm so sorry! That must have been traumatic.
[The writer stridently contradicts Liane. Responding to a reviewer’s suggestion with
a “No way” both ends the discussion about that particular suggestion and makes the
reviewer more cautious about advancing other suggestions. This is especially true
for a reviewer like Liane, who doesn’t have much confidence in her insights about
writing to begin with. Point value: -2]
d) Are you sure? I feel like there are a lot of my opinions already in the paper: I say
Simon is mean, I talk about how the contestants humiliate themselves . . . .[+2]
Liane's Response: Oh, yeah, you're kind of right. Maybe you don't need more. Maybe
you should go the other direction, actually, and add more quotes and statistics and stuff to
balance out the opinions.
[The writer explores Liane’s suggestion by returning to the paper to find evidence of
emotion. Thus the writer demonstrates that he or she has taken Liane’s suggestion
seriously but disagrees, based on the evidence. In this way, the writer redirects the
conversation but keeps Liane as an ally. Point value: +2]
[Scene 9: Comment #3: Evie]
I think you need more evidence—more quotes or something, or more statistics. There's
an awful lot of subjective stuff in there and it's facts that make a good paper.
[Scene 9: Response #3]
- 60 -
You say:
a) No, facts aren't always the best way, especially 'cause this paper is supposed to be a
reaction to the media. That is subjective. [-1]
Evie's Response: No, instructors will still tell you that supporting opinions with facts is
good.
[This response shows that the author doesn’t understand the importance of using
evidence to support claims. Evie makes an extreme statement (“it’s facts that make
a good paper”) and the writer counters with a statement almost as extreme (this
paper is supposed to be subjective). Engaging in such back and forth of opinion
won’t get the author where he or she needs to be, to a balance of claims and support.
Point value: -1]
b) I could add more of the quotes and data I collected for the Invention stage. Do you see
anything in particular that needs support? [+2]
Evie's Response: Definitely. More support for this claim would be great: "Our
generation would rather be famous than anything—43% of girls would rather be a
personal assistant to a celebrity than a CEO or president." How do you know that? Can
you elaborate more on what that means or why you think that is?
[Evie identifies a problem: lack of support. The writer resourcefully identifies a
solution: adding the support he or she collected during invention. By doing so, the
writer both takes responsibility for the paper and demonstrates a sophisticated
grasp of the writing process, showing that he or she understands that invention
work can still be profitably used at the draft stage. The writer then asks Evie to help
identify particular spots that need support, a task Evie is willing to take on because
she sees the writer is engaged and taking responsibility. Point value: +2]
c) Evidence? What do you think this is, a court of law? [-2]
Evie's Response: If it were, I'd hold you in contempt.
[Touché, Evie. With this argumentative and flippant response (even if it’s intended
to be humorous), the writer is indeed showing disrespect to both Evie and the peer
review process. Point value: -2]
d) Where should I put in more quotes? [+1]
- 61 -
Evie's Response: Well, it's your job to figure that out. But what I do is generally add a
quote or a statistic to support any argument. That way it seems like there's evidence to
back everything up.
[The author asks for more feedback, but in a way that is less likely than the +2
answer to get a good response from Evie, who is often put off by doing work she
thinks the author should do. Point value: +1]
[Scene 10: Comment #4: Liane]
I really like the ideas in your conclusion! It's really interesting that more people would
rather be a personal assistant than a CEO, or that more people would vote for American
Idol than for President. It's kind of sad too, isn't it?
[Scene 10: Response #4.]
You say:
a) It's not sad at all. I think it's totally natural. Think how much more exciting it would be
to be a personal assistant to someone awesome like Tyra Banks. And then you could
write a book! [-2]
Liane's Response: Yeah! Or have someone else write it for you!
[The writer engages with the off-topic question Liane has posed, channeling
conversational energy into a debate that has no bearing on the paper. Point value: 2]
b) Yeah, that's the point I'm trying to make. It's sad and it's wrong and American Idol just
encourages that way of thinking. [-1]
Liane's Response: Yeah, it's really awful.
[The writer keeps the focus on the paper (“that's the point I’m trying to make”), but
doesn’t push Liane to provide more substantive feedback. Point value: -1]
c) It is sad! Our values seem to be really out of whack. But I also wanted to show that it is
okay to be ordinary. Should I add that in? [+2]
Liane's Response: Definitely! You should talk more about all that. That would make a
really good conclusion, going back to the ordinary people and talking about the divisions
American Idol creates.
- 62 -
[The writer both affirms Liane’s comment and redirects her focus by asking her
opinion about a new thread for the conclusion: the idea that “it’s okay to be
ordinary.” The writer thus brings the comment back to the task at hand—the ideas
in the conclusion—without drawing unnecessary attention to Liane’s misdirection.
Point value: +2]
d) It's totally sad. So you think my conclusion's okay the way it is or should I play with it
more? I'm worried that it's too abrupt. [+1]
Liane's Response: Well, actually, I think the point you were making earlier about how
the show makes ordinary people feel less-than and that they have to laugh at the
American Idol contestants to feel better about themselves is really interesting too. It
might make an even better conclusion.
[The writer refocuses the conversation on the paper (rather than on the debate over
whether society’s love for fame is sad) by asking Liane whether the conclusion needs
work. In posing a yes-or-no question rather than a directed one, as in response c, the
author takes a risk, tempting Liane to tell the author “Sure, it’s okay!” and leave it
at that. Luckily, Liane responds with substantive feedback. Point value: +1]
________
[Scene 11: Final Evaluation]
[Message displaying in the final screen will be determined by the Meter reading.]
[If meter reads – 8 through – 4 then Evaluation 1 displays]
Oops, your Feedback Meter is too low. Remember, to improve your paper you need help
from your peers. Motivate them to give you good revision ideas. Think about effective
ways to approach each individual for the best response. Review the Best Practices for
more hints and play again to improve your score.
Play Again
End Game
[If meter reads – 3 through 0 then Evaluation 2 displays]
Not bad, but you didn't receive very much useful feedback. You can do better. Look over
the Best Practices once again and think about how to take control of the peer review
session, guide the conversation, and inspire your peers to take a closer look at your paper.
You're on the right track. Play again to improve your skills!
Play Again
End Game
- 63 -
[If meter reads + 1 through + 4 then Evaluation 3 displays]
Well done. Your Feedback Meter shows that you have negotiating skills that can turn
okay feedback into great feedback. But there is still room for improvement. You haven't
quite mastered the art of finessing your peers. Review their personality profiles and think
about Best Practices. Then play again for an even higher score.
Play Again
End Game
[If meter reads + 5 through + 8 then Evaluation 4 displays]
Excellent! You used your powers of negotiation to turn okay feedback into great
feedback. Test your mastery by choosing another peer group. Once you've learned how to
work with everyone, try another writing stage.
Play Again
End Game
["Play Again" sends player back to "Choices" interface. "End Game" quits out of the game and
closes the window]
- 64 -
Annotated Script for Revised Draft Stage
[Scene 6: Peer Group assembled. Speech bubble coming from author]
You say:
Hi. Do you guys want to look over my paper again before we start?
Hand out a copy. [clicking on "Hand out a copy" causes paper to pop-up]
[Read paper pop-up window]
Print
Continue Playing
Assignment: Do a close reading or analysis of an advertisement, a film, a song, a Web
site, a television show, or some other form of media. Discuss the impact the piece had on
you and how its elements worked together to send a message. Click to read full
assignment.
Message from the Instructor: At this later stage of the drafting process, you should
remain open to revision, no matter how extensive. There's still time to strengthen your
argument by adding new sources and to smooth out the transitions between your
paragraphs so that your logic is easy to follow. Ask your peers to help you reflect on the
paper's overall success. Have you articulated your main points? Do they see any
remaining major flaws?
- 65 -
Revised Draft for
When Bad Fame Happens to Good People: How American Idol
Brings Out the Worst in Us
"Anybody can be famous now. It's like a disease." – Paula Abdul
The American Idol stage is decorated in American colors red white and blue and
the advertisers are popular American brands like Cingular (the phone company), Coke,
and Ford. With this setting and with it's voting system (that shows the American ideas of
democracy and opportunity) American Idol is like a "stage" for the American Dream. The
American Dream said: "with hard work, anyone can be a success." American Idol
pretends to have the same message but actually laughs at people who try but don't have
talent. Today, when America's biggest dream is fame, not just success, the rules have
changed and American Idol's real message is "Everyone wants fame, but fame isn't for
everyone" or "On the road to fame, there are no guarantees."
If American Idol showed the message of the American Dream it would reward all
people who would work hard. But instead it makes fools out of people who try but don't
have talent. "I think they pick the worst people in the beginning just to demean and
embarrass them. It's sick." (TMZ.com) For example in Season Six the audition episode.
The camera showed all the worst contestants including a guy who snarled like a cat while
crawling on the stage and several really bad singers. The singers got down on their knees
and cried and begged him to let them go on because it was their dream. Simon was mean
to all of them to add to the entertainment value of the show. In short, American Idol steps
on people's dreams!
Of course sometimes people do make it in the real world after getting onto the
show. Jennifer Hudson and Kelly Clarkson are both very talented and now have very
good careers and it's good that they could get known by a big audience. But that doesn't
mean just anyone who gets on the show is going to make it even though that's what the
show pretends is true for example because some people win the lottery doesn't mean
everyone can but people lose lots of money trying.
And now everyone wants to. The auditioning girls who cried and begged Simon
were typical. Our generation would rather be famous than anything—43% of girls would
- 66 -
rather be a personal assistant to a celebrity than a CEO or president ("Fame Junkies.")
This is a serious problem in our society. Also more people voted for American Idol than
for President of the USA ("The Guardian.")
In conclusion, American Idol is not a good show for this country even though it
pretends to be—just look at it's name. It encourages us at home to laugh at people trying
to be famous and also encourages us to want to be famous a vicious cycle. There is
nothing wrong with being ordinary and we should be okay with the fact that we're
ordinary without having to watch people humiliating themselves. That makes us as bad
as Simon even if we don't realize it.
Works Cited
Halpern, Jake. Fame Junkies: The Hidden Truths Behind America's Favorite Addiction.
New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.
Setoodeh, Ramin. "Fame Junkies." Newsweek 22 Jan. 2007. 30 August 2007
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16600109/site/newsweek>.
TMZ Staff. "American Idol Season 6—'Inside Hollywood Week'" TMZ.com. 19 Dec.
2006. 30 August 2007 <http://www.tmz.com/2006/12/19/american-idol-season-6-insidehollywood-week>.
Sweney, Mark and agencies in Los Angeles. "American Idol Outvotes the President."
The Guardian 26 May 2006. 30 August 2007
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0178333900.html>.
[Scene 6: Peer Group introduction. Speech bubble above Jamal, Sam, or Liane]
Looks good. Should we get started?
Continue Playing
[Peer Review for Revised Draft. Note: each comment below is attributed to a particular
peer. Apply comments as per choices player made in scene 4.]
- 67 -
Peer Group #1: Alec and Jamal
[Revised Draft Stage comments from Alec & Jamal]
[Scene 7: Comment #1: Alec]
So, uh, most of your ideas came through, but sometimes I thought you could have been
clearer.
[Scene 7: Response #1]
You say:
a) The thesis is clear though, right? I worked hard on the thesis. [-1]
Alec's Response: The thesis? Can you remind me what . . . ? Oh, yeah, I remember.
Sure, that looks fine.
[Alec follows the instructor’s advice for the revision stage by reflecting on the
paper’s overall success. The writer could stay with him here, pushing him to point to
places where the paper becomes muddled, but instead he or she directs Alec’s
attention to the thesis and fishes for praise. The writer thus shies away from any
productive criticism, and in particular turns away from the kind of feedback that is
most useful at this stage—an indication of whether the paper is clear overall and
whether any trouble spots remain. Point value: -1]
b) So what should I look at, mostly—the introduction, the body, or the conclusion? [+2]
- 68 -
Alec's Response: Um, the beginning looks pretty clear, but I wasn't always sure I was
following you as the paper went on. Maybe look at the last three paragraphs again?
[This writer shifts Alec’s attention to the text, directing him to consider the overall
structure of the work and to identify where the paper loses its way. The writer thus
invites the most useful feedback for this stage of the writing process—feedback that
informs him or her whether or not the paper is easy to follow and points to
remaining snags. Point value: +2]
c) Great! That sounds like I'm basically where I should be. [-2]
Alec's Response: Great. I have a soccer game starting in five minutes, so if you don't
need anything more from me, maybe I'll cut out early.
[The writer demonstrates low expectations for his or her paper, settling for what
“mostly comes through” but “could be clearer.” The writer lets him- or herself and
Alec off the hook, giving up on the paper’s clarity. Point value: -2]
d) Can you point to a particular part that confused you? [+1]
Alec's Response: Yeah. You say, "American Idol is not a good show for this country
even though it pretends to be—just look at its name." But what does the name have to do
with American Idol pretending to be good for the country?
[This response points Alec back to the text and asks for specific help, but keeps
Alec’s feedback limited to just one confusing spot. Point value: +1]
[Comment #2: Jamal]
Your ideas are good, but you need to work on the writing. The mistakes are kind of
distracting.
[Response #2]
You say:
a) Well, the professor says we aren't supposed to focus on grammar during these peer
review sessions. [-2]
Jamal's Response: Your paper would be a lot better if you fixed the grammar and style
problems, but whatever.
[When Jamal says, “The mistakes are kind of distracting,” he is correctly pointing
out that the paper’s poor grammar and style are getting in the way of its readability.
The writer cites the professor’s warning not to focus on grammar, missing what’s
really at issue: the paper’s clarity. The writer’s overconfident reply discounts Jamal
- 69 -
as a reader who can identify whether the writer’s message is getting across, and
leaves the paper in a stylistic and grammatical disarray that compromises the
paper’s ideas. Point value: -2]
b) Huh. Well, I'll look it over, but I'm pretty sure the professor will care more about my
ideas than about whether every sentence is, like, textbook. [-1]
Jamal's Response: Okay, if you want to take that chance.
[The writer agrees to look at the grammatical errors, but the response is grudging,
not entirely believable, and a bit defensive. Not only does the writer fail to honor
Jamal’s reaction, but he or she likely misforecasts the professor’s. Jamal’s
comment, that the paper’s mistakes detract from its ideas, is both accurate and
appropriate to this stage of the writing process—and it is feedback the professor will
likely repeat if the writer turns in a final paper in grammatical shambles. Point
value: -1]
c) Can you give me an example? [+1]
Jamal's Response: Sure. Third paragraph, last sentence: "But that doesn't mean just
anyone who gets on the show is going to make it even though that's what the show
pretends is true for example because some people win the lottery doesn't mean everyone
can but people lose lots of money trying." Your point has gotten kind of lost there.
[The writer accepts Jamal’s criticism and asks him to point to a specific problem
area, a spot where grammatical sloppiness has gotten in the way of clarity. However,
the writer limits Jamal’s feedback to one mistake and doesn’t ask advice on how to
correct it. Point value: +1]
d) I know there are problems, but I'm not a grammar whiz. How do you deal with stuff
that seems wrong but you don't know exactly why? [+2]
Jamal's Response: Actually, I have a really good method. I go over my paper with the
professor or with a tutor at the Writing Center. Then I look up the stuff they mention in
the textbook. With each paper, I try to focus on fixing one or two bad habits. Right now
I'm focused on run-ons and comma splices. Since I'm focused on one thing, I know how
to fix it and the errors really jump out at me. I can see, for example, that you have
problems with run-ons too.
[The writer approaches Jamal as a valuable resource, a fellow student who is also
developing manageable techniques for learning the craft. By asking Jamal about his
personal approach to errors, the writer gives Jamal a chance to share what works
- 70 -
for him and invites a dialogue about concrete steps the writer can take to improve
his or her own grammar—not just on this paper but in general. Point value: +2]
[Scene 9: Comment #3: Alec]
You use some pretty colorful imagery and stuff, but I'm not sure I follow what you are
saying.
[Scene 9: Response #3]
You say:
a) That's just a language issue. The professor isn't going to care about stuff like that,
right? That's so minor. [-2]
Alec's Response: Well, I noticed and it's not like I'm on C.S.I., so I think you might want
to spend some time on that minor stuff.
[With this response, the writer demonstrates that he or she has missed the point of
the class: that writing is communicating through language. If Alec can’t understand
the paper, it is the writer’s responsibility to discover why and strive for clarity,
reworking the language in ways that will help convey the message. The writer is
wrong that the professor doesn’t care how he or she uses language to
communicate—and will soon hear as much from the horse’s mouth. Point value: -2]
b) Can you give me an example? Where do you lose your place? [+2]
Alec's Response: Each paragraph seems to start a whole new idea, but I can't see how it's
tied to the last thing.
[By asking Alec where he gets derailed, the writer demonstrates that he or she
values Alec’s reactions and is ready to put them to use to make the paper read more
smoothly. Point value: +2]
c) In a nutshell, I give each main point its own paragraph. The second paragraph shows
how AI makes fools of the contestants. The third paragraph shows that some people do
get chosen. The fourth paragraph proves that everyone wants to be famous. [+1]
Alec's Response: Yeah. That's great, but the paragraphs don't go together very well. It's
hard to see what they all add up to.
[Although the writer doesn’t ask Alec where he loses his way, as in b, he or she
explains the paper’s logic, creating an outline that may help Alec see where the
paper falls short of the writer’s intentions. The writer doesn’t invite criticism, but
- 71 -
does engage with Alec’s comment, providing some motivation for Alec to persevere
in articulating his reaction. Point value: +1]
d) Everyone has a weakness; transitions are mine. But it's good to know what you can't
do well, right? [-1]
Alec's Response: Yeah, I guess.
[Peer review is about overcoming one’s weaknesses, not simply naming them. Point
value: -1]
[Scene 10: Comment #4: Jamal]
I don't entirely get how the Paula Abdul quote ties into your paper. You don't talk about
fame as a disease, and you don't really prove that anyone can be famous, either. Actually
you kind of say the opposite.
[Scene 10: Response #4.]
You say:
a) Hey, you're right! I hadn't thought about that. In that case, do you think I should lose
the quote or just work it into the paper better? [+2]
Jamal's Response: I think you're almost talking about fame as a disease—I mean, you
compare it to winning the lottery and people can get addicted to gambling. Maybe work
in that idea of addiction?
[This response acknowledges Jamal’s feedback and asks a directed question that
pushes him for more information. Jamal has a tendency to keep his feedback short
and sweet unless given directed encouragement to go deeper and get more specific.
Questions that ask him to choose between two options (get rid of the quote or work
it in better?) work well for drawing out reviewers like Jamal. Point value: +2]
b) But I really like having the quote there. It sets things up well and I think it makes the
paper look professional. [-1]
Jamal's Response: Okay. It's just a suggestion.
[Regardless of how professional the Abdul quote looks, if it doesn’t match the
message of the paper, it doesn’t belong at the top. Here, the writer protests Jamal’s
point without really considering it. Point value: -1]
- 72 -
c) What's not to get? I mean, for one thing, Paula Abdul is a judge on the show. [-2]
Jamal's Response: Um, okay. Well, it's your call.
[Jamal has touched on the message of the quote, the message of the paper, and the
mismatch between them. In this response, the writer has missed everything but
Jamal’s critical tone. Instead of grappling with the substantive mismatch between
quote and paper, the writer comes up with an insulting remark ("What’s not to
get?") and a flimsy rationale to keep the quote. Point value: -2]
d) I've been using the quote for a while; I guess it didn't occur to me that it doesn't really
work with the paper anymore. I'll look for a better one. Thanks! [+1]
Jamal's Response: Okay. Good luck with that. Maybe you had something in your old
notes for the invention stage that you could use instead.
[In this response, the author understands the point of Jamal’s comment but misses
an important opportunity to discuss the bigger picture, which is that the author
hasn’t quite settled on a single, guiding metaphor. Point value: +1]
Peer Group #2: Marissa and Sam
[Revised Draft Stage comments from Marissa & Sam]
[Scene 7: Comment #1: Marissa]
- 73 -
You're saying that American Idol has changed the rules of the American Dream. That's
such an interesting thesis! I'm really jealous—I wish I had ideas that good.
[Scene 7: Response #1]
You say:
a) Oh, thanks! I had fun thinking it through and even more fun watching all those
episodes. I can't believe that was our homework! [-1]
Marissa's Response: Um, okay. Well, it's your call. I bet. It's totally great. The
professor will love it.
[The writer takes Marissa’s compliment—which is fine—but doesn't follow up with
a specific question. Marissa is happy to settle for giving out fluff if the author
doesn’t push her for something more constructive. Point value: -1]
b) Thanks. In the body of the paper, do you think I supported the thesis? [+1]
Marissa's Response: Yeah! Like when you use Season Six to show how American Idol
makes fools out of people who are hardworking, but not talented—who could have
maybe reached the old version of the American Dream, but not this new one.
[The writer thanks Marissa for complimenting his or her thesis, then uses her
comment as a jumping off point to ask whether the thesis is supported in the paper.
The writer thus usefully redirects a discussion that might have slipped aimlessly
deeper into applause, though the writer’s yes-or-no question limits Marissa's
response. Point value: +1]
c) Thanks! Can you point to where that was most strongly supported and where, if
anywhere, the support seemed weaker? [+2]
Marissa's Response: Sure! Paragraph 2 was clear, but when I got to paragraph 3, I
wasn't sure what your point was until I got to the sentence, "It doesn't mean just anyone
who gets on the show is going to make it even though that's what the show pretends."
Maybe start the paragraph with that idea?
[As in b, the writer shifts Marissa’s compliment into a question about how well the
thesis is supported in the paper. The writer keeps Marissa’s attention on the bigpicture question of whether the thesis is supported throughout while asking her to
pinpoint particular trouble spots—a request particularly appropriate for the
revision stage, when writers need both overall assessments and warnings of
remaining major flaws. Unlike the yes-or-no question in b, the question in c is openended but also directed, offering Marissa both latitude and guidance. Moreover, by
- 74 -
asking Marissa to identify both strong and weak spots, the writer gives her a chance
to soften her criticism with praise. Point value: +2]
d) I drink three Red Bulls and eat a pint of Haagen Daas and then sit back: the inspiration
just comes. [-2]
Marissa's Response: Oh my gosh, what a good idea! I'm going to try that.
[The writer basks in Marissa’s praise and revels in his or her own facetiousness. The
comment is fun—and completely unproductive. Point value: -2]
[Comment #2: Sam]
Some of your sentences are clear and well-written, like your thesis. Others gave me a
headache, they're so convoluted. You really need to go over this paper and make sure
your writing makes sense.
[Response #2]
You say:
a) Well, not everyone can write like you, Sam. [-2]
Sam's Response: True.
[Sam often comes off sounding brusque, but getting defensive only makes him smug,
in addition to wrecking any chance of drawing more information from him. Point
value: -2]
b) Can you give me an example of a sentence you thought needed more work? [+1]
Sam's Response: Last paragraph, third sentence: "There is nothing wrong with being
ordinary and we should be okay with the fact that we're ordinary without having to watch
people humiliating themselves." I get what you're saying but the way you put it is much
more convoluted than it needs to be.
[The author asks Sam to point to a specific troublesome sentence, but stops short of
seeking strategies for fixing it and others like it. Point value: +1]
c) It makes sense to me! How am I supposed to figure out why it's confusing to other
people? I can't get into their heads. [-1]
- 75 -
Sam's Response: True, science has yet to advance that far.
[In peer review, writers learn how readers make sense of their words, gathering
clues that will help them clarify their meaning. The writing process, which involves
drafting, seeking feedback, and rewriting, is essentially a striving for clarity. With
this response, the writer throws up his or her hands at this process, as if to say, “Let
me off this merry-go-round of writing and rewriting! I’m done trying to make
things any clearer!” It’s a cry of frustration; the writer is giving up. Point value: -1]
d) Thanks. I worked hard on that thesis sentence. What about it seemed clear and wellwritten, and how can I do that with the rest of my sentences? [+2]
Sam's Response: The thesis doesn't have glaring grammar errors and the points you
make are focused. Later on you start to ramble and the writing gets sloppy in places. At
this stage, you might want to bring your paper to the Writing Center or to the professor
for review.
[The writer focuses on the positive part of Sam’s comment—his compliment on the
thesis—and asks Sam to identify what went right there and how he or she can
replicate the success. Sam thrives when writers affirm his insights and seek his
advice. Point value: +2]
[Scene 9: Comment #3: Marissa]
I love how you weave all your ideas together!
[Scene 9: Response #3]
You say:
a) Thanks, but I still feel like the ideas in the intro don't come together. Can you look at it
again and help me figure out what's wrong? [+2]
Marissa's Response: Now that you mention it, I see what you mean. At the end of the
intro you say: "American Idol's real message is "Everyone wants fame, but fame isn't for
everyone" or 'On the road to fame, there are no guarantees.'" But the ideas leading up to it
suggest something else. Seems like you are trying to say that American Idol's real
message is that fame has become our most important value, but it's an empty one?
[The writer accepts Marissa’s compliment, then immediately directs her back to the
paper, asking her to look at a particular section, the introduction. By making a selfcritique (“I still feel like the ideas in the intro don’t come together”), the writer
invites Marissa’s productive criticism. Marissa can give good feedback if she knows
the author can handle it, especially if she is given directed encouragement. Point
value: +2]
- 76 -
b) Yeah, me too! And even though I criticize the show, you know I secretly love it. I
think everybody has that guilty pleasure. [-2]
Marissa's Response: Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I'm addicted to the gossip
blogs and I read US Weekly. I know it's trash, but it's so much fun. I just can't help
myself.
[This response encourages the atmosphere of cozy chattiness, leading the dialogue
away from the paper. Point value: -2]
c) Thanks. I didn't even really think about it, but you're right, it's perfect. [-1]
Marissa's Response: Totally. Good job.
[The writer exaggerates Marissa’s compliment, concluding that his or her paper is
“perfect.” Because Marissa is agreeable and most comfortable with praise, she
affirms the writer’s overstatement without pushing him or her further. Point value:
-1]
d) Thanks! I really struggled to get my ideas across, but when I read it to my roommate, it
still seemed choppy. Did you notice any passages that didn't quite make sense? [+1]
Marissa's Response: Well, now that you mention it, there were a few places that
confused me. I wasn't sure what to think about the last sentence in your intro.
[As in a, the writer thanks Marissa, then makes a self-critique (“it still seemed
choppy”) that invites her productive criticism. In a, the writer directed Marissa’s
attention to a particular section, the introduction, thereby assuring Marissa that he
or she was serious about hearing her feedback. A broader request for feedback, as
in this response, is less successful in drawing Marissa out. Point value: +1]
[Scene 10: Comment #4: Sam]
Your Works Cited page seems to be formatted right, but your internal citations need
some work.
[Scene 10: Response #4.]
You say:
a) They communicate the information they need to, don't they? [-1]
- 77 -
Sam's Response: Actually, no. For example, two of your sources—a book and an
article—are titled "Fame Junkies," so the parenthetical citation "Fame Junkies" is
ambiguous.
[With misplaced confidence, the writer dismisses Sam’s suggestion. The writer
doesn’t seem to understand that, where documentation is concerned, following the
standardized format matters—nor does he or she seem open to learning as much
from Sam. Point value: -1]
b) Good point. I know there's something about internal citations in the textbook. I'll look
there. Any other polishing tips, once I'm really at that stage? [+2]
Sam's Response: You have some run-on sentences and some small grammar problems,
like confusing "its" and "it's." I'd ask someone to help you proofread before you turn it in.
Also, you could copy a paragraph into a separate document to look at it out of context—
sometimes that helps you focus on details like grammar.
[This response affirms Sam’s concerns, takes responsibility for the fix, and asks for
more feedback—“polishing tips.” In this way, the writer welcomes Sam’s
suggestions, but demonstrates that he or she intends to save these particular bits of
advice for the editing, rather than revision, stage. The writer also solicits Sam’s
feedback beyond advice on citations. When writers exhibit a combination of openmindedness and confidence in directing their own writing process, reviewers are
more likely to engage. Sam especially enjoys being cast in the adviser role, doling
out tips, and welcomes the writer's confidence as long as he still feels valued as
consultant. Point value: +2]
c) Well, thanks a lot for your opinion, but I think they're fine. [-2]
Sam's Response: Whoa. Hostile. I was just trying to help.
[The writer huffs, giving Sam a sarcastic “thanks” and a dismissive “I think they’re
fine,” closing him- or herself off to help. Point value: -2]
d) Do you know how they should be formatted, or where I should look for formatting
guidelines? [+1]
Sam's Response: Yeah, I guess. I know that the author's name should appear in
parentheses, not the name of the piece, Web site, or magazine. You can find more on
internal citations on p. 750 of the textbook.
[The writer accepts Sam’s feedback and asks for help. However, the writer fails to
make clear that he or she values Sam’s feedback or wants advice beyond citation
- 78 -
formatting. Giving Sam that extra assurance—a simple “Good point” would suffice,
as in b—makes the difference between getting useful and halfhearted information
from him. Point value: +1]
- 79 -
Peer Group #3: Evie and Liane
[Revised Draft Stage comments from Evie & Liane]
[Scene 7: Comment #1: Evie]
You look like you're doing okay here. Your main points are coming across, mostly.
[Scene 7: Response #1]
You say:
a) I'm so excited to hear that you love my paper! You were pretty harsh about my last
paper, so that really means something. [-1]
Evie's Response: Uh, sure. So I guess I can go now?
[The writer latches on to Evie’s praise, dismissing its hints of criticism (“okay” and
“mostly”) as mere understatement. The writer demonstrates low expectations for
his or her paper and an impatience to be done with improvements. Point value: -1]
b) Thanks! Can I ask your advice on something, though? Should I make my point about
the fever to win Idol being similar to the lottery, more explicitly? Or does that come
across? [+1]
Evie's Response: It doesn't, really, so yeah, I'd come out and say that. Also, I'd go more
into why that's a problem, you know? Why that means there's something wrong with our
society.
- 80 -
[The writer sidesteps the question Evie’s comment invites—“What do you mean the
main points are ‘mostly’ coming through?”—instead asking Evie to weigh in on
whether the Idol-lottery parallel is working. This is a good question—and seemingly
one that the writer came prepared to ask—but it doesn’t take advantage of Evie’s
readiness to reflect on the overall success of the paper and its remaining
imperfections, which are the things the writer needs to hear at the revision stage.
Point value: +1]
c) What do you mean by "mostly"? Do you see connections that I could make more
smoothly, or ideas that I need to flesh out? [+2]
Evie's Response: Well, your idea about how winning American Idol is like winning the
lottery, for example. You mention the idea of a "vicious cycle" in your last paragraph but
don't really explain it. Maybe describe the vicious cycle that American Idol creates—we
want fame; Idol puts it out of reach; we want it even more. Then point out the lottery
works the same way.
[In her comment, Evie dangles the word “mostly” like a carrot; this is the only
response that bites. What Evie is offering is a chance for the writer look through her
eyes to see what still isn’t coming across. In inviting Evie’s comments, the writer
demonstrates that he or she is brave enough to admit to imperfection and face the
possibility of more work, even this late in the writing process. The writer asks a
question that is encouragingly open-ended—unlike the yes-or-no question in b—and
shows Evie that he or is engaged, aware of the kinds of improvements he or she
might need to make. Point value: +2]
d) Hey, did you see American Idol last night? It was hilarious. There was this crazy boy
and he was totally off-key and all I could think was, "This totally proves my point!" You
know? [-2]
Evie's Response: No, I missed it. I was working on my Fulbright application.
[This comment doesn’t even acknowledge Evie’s. (Total lack of acknowledgement is
possibly worse even than defensiveness or dismissiveness.) For Evie, who dislikes
peer review and believes the paper is the writer’s responsibility, this comment
proves that the writer is totally undeserving of her energy—not of the little that
she’s already invested, and far less anything beyond it. Point value: -2]
[Comment #2: Liane]
I'm sorry I can't really help you with grammar—I'm terrible at it!
- 81 -
[Response #2]
You say:
a) That's okay! I think the grammar's fine. [-1]
Liane's Response: Phew!
[Liane wouldn’t have brought up grammar unless she knew—contrary to her
claim—that the paper contains grammatical errors. The writer discounts this
possibility, letting him- or herself and Liane off the hook. Point value: -1]
b) The grammar checker showed a few errors, but I don't know how to fix them. What do
you do? [+1]
Liane's Response: Sometimes I ask someone to help me; sometimes I look at our
textbook and go over the things I often get wrong, like "it's" instead of "its." I just found
out about the Writing Center, so I'm going there for help with my next draft.
[The writer respects Liane’s reticence to help diagnose errors, asking her instead to
share her own grammar-fixing strategies. Point value: +1]
c) I'm working on grammar with a Writing Center. Do you see any other problems? [+2]
Liane's Response: Well, I still don't understand why you have this in the first paragraph:
"On the road to fame, there are no guarantees."
[The writer reassures Liane that the grammar issues are being dealt with and asks
for feedback on other problems. In this way, the writer encourages Liane to pick
something she feels comfortable talking about. Point value: +2]
d) I'm not really worried about that kind of superficial stuff. [-2]
Liane's Response: Oh! You're probably right, I guess, but I know I get nervous about
mine, and professors do usually mark when I've gotten something wrong.
[By referring to the grammar issues Liane has brought up as “superficial stuff,” the
writer discounts her concern—and may even make her feel bad for bringing up the
topic at all. Point value: -2]
[Scene 9: Comment #3: Evie]
- 82 -
It's a rough read—kind of choppy.
[Scene 9: Response #3]
You say:
a) But I smoothed it out a lot since the first draft. [-1]
Evie's Response: Really? Wow. It must have been a mess.
[The whine in this response is almost audible—and, for a reviewer like Evie,
whining is a major turn-off. Evie feels little obligation to help the writer in the first
place, much less so if the writer begs off responsibility for his or her work. Point
value: -1]
b) Good call. Can you point out a few specific places where you had trouble? [+1]
Evie's Response: The introduction, the first two sentences in the second paragraph . . .
actually, looking it over again, I can't isolate a few specific places. The whole thing really
needs smoothing out.
[This response shows a willingness to revise and asks for help pinpointing the areas
of concern. Point value: +1]
c) I can't believe you're calling my paper "a rough read"! You're like the Simon of peer
review. [-2]
Evie's Response: Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em.
[Incredulous at Evie’s (admittedly harsh) criticism, the writer insults Evie. This
response is not only defensive but combative. Point value: -2]
d) You are a good writer, how do you smooth out your papers? [+2]
Evie's Response: I go through the paper sentence by sentence, asking myself how each
one contributes to my argument, and making sure they build on each other. Then I read it
out loud. I can usually hear awkward phrasing that way. If I can get someone to listen to
it, even better, the look on their face tells me when something isn't sounding good or
making sense.
[In b, the writer asks Evie to pinpoint problem areas—a request that may
overwhelm the writer and leave him or her without resources to address the
- 83 -
problem. Here, the writer takes a wiser route, asking Evie for strategic advice from
personal experience. Point value: +2]
[Scene 10: Comment #4: Liane]
The paper looks great. I really don't know what to say about it. It's in really good shape. I
wish mine were as good.
[Scene 10: Response #4.]
You say:
a) I'm sure yours is fine! Don't worry. [-1]
Liane's Response: I'm trying, but it's hard. Anyway, congrats on yours!
[This response directs attention away from the paper under consideration. Liane
loves to avoid being critical; the author can’t let her. Point value: -1]
b) Thanks! I'm glad you think it's okay. What do you think about the tone? Is it too
much? [+1]
Liane's Response: Well, I think you come across as disgusted, which could be totally
fine. But if that's not what you intended, you should probably take a look at it again.
[This response accepts Liane’s praise and then directs her to a specific area of
concern, making clear that the author can handle criticism. What makes this a +1
and not a +2 response is that the author doesn’t contextualize the concern. Asking if
the tone is “too much” could produce a variety of responses, not all of which would
be helpful. Point value: +1]
c) Thanks! You really think it's all right? That's such a relief. I've worked really hard on it
and I'm not sure I could bring myself to do more, you know? And there's karaoke tonight
in the lounge. [-2]
Liane's Response: Karaoke! I'm there.
[This response devalues the peer review process. Even this late in the process, the
writer must be willing to make the extra effort to get the paper in shape. Point
value: -2]
- 84 -
d) I appreciate it! I'm kind of still worried about the paper overall though. In my last draft
the professor said the tone was too strong in some places. Did anything seem over the top
to you? [+2]
Liane's Response: Most of the time it's fine, but there's one sentence in your last
paragraph where you kind of flare up: "In conclusion, American Idol is not a good show
for this country" I'd take that out—it's not really academic sounding, which is what I
think the professor is going for mostly.
[This response lets Liane know that the author values her praise, then directs her to
a specific area of concern by asking a focused question. Also, referencing the
professor’s previous remarks legitimates the author’s concern. Point value: +2]
[Scene 11: Final Evaluation]
[Message displaying in the final screen will be determined by the Meter reading.]
[If meter reads – 8 through – 4 then Evaluation 1 displays]
Oops, your Feedback Meter is too low. Remember, to improve your paper you need help
from your peers. Motivate them to give you good revision ideas. Think about effective
ways to approach each individual for the best response. Review the Best Practices for
more hints and play again to improve your score.
Play Again
End Game
[If meter reads – 3 through 0 then Evaluation 2 displays]
Not bad, but you didn't receive very much useful feedback. You can do better. Look over
the Best Practices once again and think about how to take control of the peer review
session, guide the conversation, and inspire your peers to take a closer look at your paper.
You're on the right track. Play again to improve your skills!
Play Again
End Game
[If meter reads + 1 through + 4 then Evaluation 3 displays]
Well done. Your Feedback Meter shows that you have negotiating skills that can turn
okay feedback into great feedback. But there is still room for improvement. You haven't
quite mastered the art of finessing your peers. Review their personality profiles and think
about Best Practices. Then play again for an even higher score.
Play Again
End Game
- 85 -
[If meter reads + 5 through + 8 then Evaluation 4 displays]
Excellent! You used your powers of negotiation to turn okay feedback into great
feedback. Test your mastery by choosing another peer group. Once you've learned how to
work with everyone, try another writing stage.
Play Again
End Game
["Play Again" sends player back to "Choices" interface. "End Game" quits out of the game and
closes the window]
- 86 -
Appendix A: Full Assignment
Assignment: Media Analysis
Length Requirement: One to two pages typed, double-spaced
Assignment Description: Do a close reading or analysis of an advertisement, a film, a
song, a Web site, a television show, or some other form of media that conveys a
meaningful message. Discuss the impact the piece had on you as a viewer/listener and
how its elements worked together to form and to send its message. Your review should
have a thesis or a main point that the essay as a whole supports.
Purpose: This assignment will help you become a more aware media user. By analyzing
some type of media, you will become more cognizant of the messages being sent by
movies, music, television, and the Internet. You will also further develop your critical
thinking skills and your writing skills.
Steps for Writing:
• Identify a media object (movie, TV episode, song, etc.) that makes an interesting
or important statement to you. What is that statement?
• How is the statement made? Through images? Characters' actions or statements?
The rhythm or beat of a song? Are symbols used to convey meaning?
• Use the steps of the writing process to brainstorm, draft, and revise your ideas into
a clear, coherent essay.
- 87 -
Appendix B: Monster Hints
1. Be a good listener. You will likely be barraged by diverse and contradictory feedback.
Challenge yourself to take everything in. The more fully you are able to inhabit each of
your peers' perceptions—including their misperceptions—the more successful you will
be at deciding which comments you should file for safekeeping, which you should
discard as dead ends, and which you should push further. Your peers are your audience.
Listen to what they have to say.
2. Invite specific kinds of help. You may want to ask readers to help you solve a
particular problem in your paper, or to make comments that will help you better address a
particular audience or achieve a particular purpose. (Keep in mind that if you provide
such a framework, the comments you receive will be more focused but they will cover
less ground.) Make your request clear at the outset and remind your readers of it if they
forget.
3. Show appreciation. When you show appreciation for their perspectives, readers will
readily respond by giving you more. Listen to and engage with your readers' comments.
When you hear something that seems especially insightful or that makes something
clearer for you, say so. And always thank your readers at the end of the session for taking
the time to respond.
4. Take responsibility. There's nothing that will annoy your peer reviewers more than if
you don't take responsibility for your own writing. It's fine to say that you don't know
something in response to a question, but then take the next step and find out. The more
invested you are in your own writing, the more likely your reviewers are to be as well.
5. Manage expectations. Sometimes the peer review process can be overwhelming. You
may come out of a particularly critical session feeling like you can't do anything right.
Remember, the goal in peer review is to get your classmates to help you improve your
paper. Too much feedback is usually a good thing, but if it leaves you feeling defeated,
try asking your peers to identify places where the paper is working. Chances are you've
got some good ideas in there to build on. It's important not to lose sight of the progress
you are making.
6. Analyze the results. Even after you've mastered the art of getting feedback, don't
assume the peer review process will give you everything you need to improve your paper.
Peer review is designed to help you improve your skills as a writer and as a collaborator,
but try to keep it in perspective. Incorporating every suggestion still might not earn you
high marks from your instructor. Some of what your peers say will be useful, some of it
won't be. Ultimately, you are responsible for the final results.
- 88 -