trinity_feedback

.docx

School

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1101

Subject

English

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ProfRain7132

WA 1 – Peer Review for WA 1 [remote] Reviewee [writer]: Trinity Jones Reviewer [you]: Alexander Kaye As you read the paper, ● Highlight the thesis statement. This sentence (or sentences) should present a summary of the summarized speaker’s main points. ● Highlight or underline the following words/phrases: you, your, we, us, our, etc. (that present point of view and voice concerns). Please keep in mind: No responses to a question on this peer review sheet should be short, vague, or rushed. This is a critical thinking assignment for you, and I need to be able to see that you are thinking critically about your peer’s essay and applying what you have learned thus far from our discussions of the following: the writing process, traditional essay structure, Chapters 1-3 of the text, Anne Lamott’s “Shitty First Drafts,” William Safire’s “The Perfect Paragraph,” and the ENC 1101 Essay Rubric. To receive full credit for the assignment, I will need you to answer every question on the sheet thoughtfully and specifically, highlight what was instructed above ^ , and submit the peer review sheet to the correct Canvas Discussion Board by the assigned deadline. Introduction – Context and Thesis The introduction of the paper should summarize either Waldinger or Achor’s main points from his presentation. In order to do this successfully, the paper writer must provide sufficient and objective context for the reader. It should answer the question with who, what, where, when, why, and how. Context includes clearly explaining the problem or issues as well as proving any background information needed for a reader to understand the author’s argument. Is objective context provided? Explain and provide suggestions for development and improvement of the context. There is certainly a need for greater context here. Some things that would help to create a better introduction are explaining who Shawn Achor is as well as when the speech was given. Furthermore, you may even want to specify that Achor's speech was a TED talk. What is the peer’s argument (thesis)? Does the thesis summarize what your peer took to be the speaker’s main points? Does the thesis specifically outline the main points you also identified from the source? Explain and provide suggestions for development and improvement of the thesis. If there is no clear thesis, make some suggestions to help the peer clarify the peer’s point of view. Your thesis identified what you thought were the main points that you identified from the speech, that being said, those points were just listed with zero, even surface level, expasion upon them to help indicate to the reader early on where you are going to be going with your paper. After watching the video, I did walk away with the same main points as you however, I picked up an additional one as well. I feel that using, analyzing and paraphrasing things said by Achor throughout the speech (particularly his anecdote from the beginning) could probably seve as the basis for an additional paragraph on the merits of "positive pychology". Also, I would advise that you find a way to remind the audience that the list of activities you provide in your thesis is taken from your understanding and interpretation of the Achor's speech. Lastly, I would advise doing careful pass on you thesis for grammar mistakes, for example, the word journaling should be changed to journal .

Body Paragraphs – Explaining Your Reasons and Evidence Review each body paragraph – does the evidence match the main point of that paragraph (which should be clearly stated in the topic sentence)? Are there any paragraphs where you are not able to discern the point or any paragraphs that get off track with irrelevant information? Make a note of the paragraph number and provide a brief explanation below. The part of paragraph 2 mentioning Achor's "sickness week" does not seem to me to be particularly revelant to the apparent topic of the the paragraph: identifying three things we are grateful for and jounaling. Instead, if you are interested in utilizing the "sickness week" story, it would be better served as part of a possible paragraph explaining the benefits of "positive physcology" Evidence – does the writer provide sufficient evidence to support the thesis? Can you find a variety of evidence? Count each incidence of evidence, including examples, quotations, paraphrases, logical reasoning, and common knowledge, you can find in each body paragraph. For each paragraph below, indicate the number of uses of evidence. So, for example, if you find two quotations, a paraphrase, and an example in body paragraph 1, you would write the number 4 next to B1. Indicate where further evidence is needed to support the argument and/or further explanation of the quotes is needed to make connections to the peer’s argument. Use paragraph numbers to provide specific response. B1 = 4 instances found in paragraph 2 B2 = 4 instances found in pargraph 3 B3 = 3 instances found in paragraph 4 I suppose sufficient evidence is presented to support the thesis however it is very difficult to get a feel for what types of evidence is being used as it is not very clear when the speech is being paraphrased, quoted, or evaluated. It is also very difficult due the lack of quotation marks, many seemingly missing words, confusing syntax & grammar, and lines or that appear to have been pulled directly from the speech with no credit given. Integrating Evidence - Indicate where or if you see faulty or inadequate interpretations/analysis of the integrated evidence, meaning a weak application or framing of IQEA (introduce, quote, explain, and analyze) as outlined in Chapter 3 of your text. I say this as kindly as possible but there are too many instances of weak usage of the IQEA structure to point them out individually. My recommendation would be to re-read your paper multiple times with a special focus paid to your application of the IQEA framework. Giving Credit - Do clear signal phrases prepare readers for secondary sources (ex: According to John Smith . . .)? Are quotes blended well with the author’s own language? Are summaries and paraphrases free of plagiarized material and properly documented (you will need to track down the quotes to double check)? Do readers know where the material being cited begins—where the writer’s voice ends and source’s voice begins (due to an appropriate use of quotation marks and in-text citation)? I would say with near certainty that this paper has quite a bit of seemingly unintentional plagiarism. As previously noted, there are ideas and phraseology lifted from the speech without credit given. There are also no quotation marks as well as confusing syntax and grammar thereby making it confusing to determine where the writer's voice ends. Organization/Transitions – Has the writer used clear organizational cues (transitions, signal phrases, repetition of key

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version