College Essay Tuning Protocol (aka Peer Critique)

Groups
Unicorns

Sasquatches

Leprechauns

Loch Ness
Monsters

Alpine
Alligators

T-Rexes

Rollin
Cairo
Teddy

Kaitlin
Ben Malone
Ashley T.
Kelsie

Lilah
Ben Elam
Morgan

Elle
Dylan King
Hannah

Teddy
Toree
Lyric

Destiny
Will
Caity

Each Group Needs:

1. Tables pulled together
2. A timekeeper with military precision, a take-no-prisoners attitude, no sense of humor.
3. Multiple copies of each piece of student work (each member will get one)

Authors Need: Both Parts 2 and Parts 3, pen/pencil, lined paper for note taking
Tuners Need: Pen/pencil, highlighter, copy of author's paper, sensitivity, sense of
decency
Each group will have exactly 30 minutes to review each paper. Timekeepers must move us
along quickly in order for a group of 3 to finish in 90 minutes or so.

Peer Critique Process

Reading (10 minutes)

1. Tuners- Read and annotate Parts 2 and 3. As an option, consider the author reading the essay
aloud to the tuners. Look for the following:
a. Presentation of content, and structure of argument, evidence, thesis.
b. Is the author exercising careful choice of active verbs and concise word choice?
c. The most convincing argument(s) and/or evidence.
d. Have they used ETHOS, PATHOS, and LOGOS effectively?
e. Does it say why the authors perspective is the most just based on equality, security and/or liberty?
f. Make any quick/easy grammar corrections you can on their paper
g. Jot down clarifying questions and suggestions you have for the author
2. Author- Brainstorm a focus question or area of concern. This question point to an area of
concern for you in your writing. Examples:
a. Do I seem to be balanced in providing the BEST arguments for both sides of the issue?
b. Do I write concisely and clearly?
c. Are my thesis statements clear?
d. Do I have a strong hook for both essays?

e. How could I improve my conclusion?

Intro and Focus Question (2 min)

1. Author explains his/her focusing question and any challenges he/she had in writing these two
essays.
2. Tuners- SILENCE! - Dialogue is unproductive at this point.
3. After the Author has explained, tuners may ask clarifying questions (NOT suggestions, not
leading questions clarification only)
Critiquers Get to Refinement suggestions! (10 min)
1. Favorite Sentence Discussion. Tuners will discuss their favorite sentence by the author. Why
favorite? Tuners will come to a consensus, and send a tuner to write that sentence on the back
whiteboard.
2. Tuners- In turns, each tuner must discuss their thoughts on writing, suggestions for revision
(content and structure, address focus question)
3. Tuners review rubric, discussing specific strengths/areas for growth. Where would this essay
fall on the rubric and why?
4. Author- SILENT, taking notes

Reflection and Discussion (5 minutes)

1. Author speaks to comments/questions while participants are silent. This is not the time to
defend yourself or your work, but to reflect aloud on the ideas or questions that seemed
particularly interesting and/or helpful.
2. Group discussion: Tuners- Once the author has finished reflecting, encourage a discussion
with the author
a. What are the strengths of the essay?
b. Where are the specific areas that require refinement?
c. How can the author make more of their essay like the favorite sentence?

Procedural Debrief (2 min)

1. Debrief of ideas for improvement of the analysis (do any of the times need to be lengthened,
shortened? What were really productive moments of the session? In what spots were we
unproductive? How can we tighten the protocol for next time?)
2. Repeat procedure until all essays have been revised and edited.
3. Finished with all of your papers? Gather your feedback and get revising!

RUBRIC ON NEXT PAGE!

I-Controversy Writing Rubric

10-9
Superb to very
strong execution of
the standard

8
Meets the standard
with some room for
improvement

7
Approaching the
standard- almost
there!

3-6
Below the standard

0
Standard is not
present

Thesis and Introduction

Introduction clearly outlines the context for your essay
Thesis responds to the prompt in a way that is succinct,
focused, and direct
Does it say why the authors perspective is the most just
based on equality, security and/or liberty?
Organization
Topic sentences support argument in thesis
Topic sentences are clear, succinct, and direct
Topic sentences guide paragraph content
Paragraphs are organized in a clear, effective manner (such as T, E, A, E, A,
etc).
Effective transitions link ideas together
Ideas and paragraphs logically flow in a way that makes sense.
Careful Thinking/Argumentation
This is where I
will most
Arguments are well-supported, without any unsupported
heavily
generalizations or misinterpretations.
evaluate the
Background information provides context for evidence
use of your
Commentary and evaluation shows deep insight and
philosophical
complex thinking about the issue
arguments
Focus remains on topic in every paragraph
and use of
Conclusions reached are logical and naturally follow from the
rhetoric
arguments and evidence in your paper
(ethos/pathos
Your moral philosophy reference is logical and accurate
)
Evidence
There is ample evidence from various reputable sources to
support your claim.
Evidence used is relevant and accurate
Evidence is carefully chosen and cut for maximum impact
and relevance, without compromising the integrity of the
original source
Evidence is referenced and cited (in text) using MLA
whenever necessary
Quotes are set up correctly and analyzed succinctly and

insightfully
Sentence Craft, Style, and Proofreading

Tone, voice, and point of view are always appropriate to the purpose and
audience
Active verbs and precise nouns add clarity
Sentence length adds variety with no awkward or unfocused constructions
Quotes and evidence are introduced and seamlessly integrated
No errors, typos, etc. Ready for publication.
Works cited is formatted correctly