Kristen Finucan

Dr. Shana Hartman

ENED 683
9 November 2016
WAD Phases One and Two
Reflective Letter
Dear Dr. Hartman,
I feel like I have learned so much since beginning this project. Looking ahead to my capstone
project, I would be interested in continuing my study of peer review. My goals are to continue to
move my classes into more writing workshops. As I have stressed in both my inquiry project
share out and my second research memo for ENGL 501, I had so much to learn about how to
conduct a peer review. The research overwhelmingly shows that students need very detailed
instructions and I found this to be true. I noticed that it was difficult for them to be blunt about
errors. As I look towards revision, I plan to incorporate more modeling into my preparation
leading up to the actual peer review. I also want to hold students more accountable for utilizing
their partners feedback. I am in the process of reading through their revised rough drafts. There
has been one case where a student did not take his partners feedback to heart and I wound up
catching the exact same error (a lack of transitions between paragraphs) that his partner had
pointed out. I am considering having students respond to their partners comments with
evidence of making the correction or an explanation of why they chose not to.
I have tried to organize my WAD in a way that you can easily scroll through it. I begin
with my revised Phase One and then move on to Phase Two. When I inserted images, a gap
appeared between the text and the image. This is the case where I have the rubric I am using to

grade them in the Phase One handout and again where I share the rubric for student examples.
In both cases, the rubrics appreared on the following page and I have not been able to move
them up. This document extends ten full pages. All my links are google docs. I made sure to
change the settings so that anyone with the link can view. My grades panned out strangely for
this assignment. Students either knocked it out and scored in the 90s or stuggled and scored in
the 70s. I really did not have a good mid-range example to share. Outside of that, I feel good
about the evidence I have gathered. I look forward to your feedback.
Thank you,
Kristen Finucan

Writing Assignment Design

The Rationale
At the behest of our local board of education, all students in Rutherford County Schools will
complete the graduation project, a four component project that begins with a five to seven-page
research paper on the topic of the students choice. The research paper must be completed in
all students English III classroom. To assist students in preparing their best work, I have
devised a peer review activity to be completed before submitting their rough draft. Research has
proven peer review to be valuable by allowing students access to high quality feedback from
their peers. Additionally, peer review offers students the chance to see stylistic and structural
choices their peers have made that they can adapt to their own writing.
Context
This assignment will be completed by English III students. The classes are made up of high
school sophomores and juniors. As per our common pacing guide, all English III students at
Chase High School complete the graduation project research paper over the course of the
second six weeks. This peer edit assignment will take place after they have completed their
rough drafts. Before this assignment takes place, I will need to train them on the proper way to
provide feedback for research papers. I have a collection of graduation project research papers
that have already been published. I plan to remove all identifying information and model ways to

approach a peer edit before allowing students to practice. I have set aside an entire class period
for the training and a class period for the peer edit. My classes are 90 minutes long.
Common Core Standards Met by the Peer Edit Assignment:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.5
Analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of the structure an author uses in his or her exposition
or argument, including whether the structure makes points clear, convincing, and engaging
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.11-12.3
Evaluate a speaker's point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric, assessing the
stance, premises, links among ideas, word choice, points of emphasis, and tone used.
Handout for Students

Assignment: Peer Edit

Initial Thoughts:
Now that you have completed a rough draft, you are ready to begin the process of revision and
moving towards completing a strong synthesized argument. I want to remind you of our class
discussion where I encouraged you to consider the word revision in a whole new context. Our
focus is on seeing our paper with fresh eyes. One of the most efficient ways to do this is to
engage in a peer edit with a partner. Not only will you be encouraging and assisting a
classmate, but, through this process, you will find your own writing has improved.
Objectives:
Through this activity, students will complete a peer edit of a partners paper in which they
evaluate the paper with a focus on the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Introduction
Argument
Development
Tone
Conventions

The Process
Step One: Take a few minutes and take turns talking. Voice any concerns you may have about
your paper to your partner. For instance, is there a particular section of the paper or aspect of
your argument you would like specific feedback on?

Step Two: Read your partners paper straight through without adding any comments verbally or
on the google doc. Think back to all the times we have analyzed an authors purpose. Can you
see the purpose in partners paper?
Step Three: The Introduction - Go back and reread your partners introductory paragraph.
Highlight or underline the hook in your partners paper. What can the writer do to further connect
with the reader in the introduction? Underline the thesis statement. Judging by their thesis
statement alone, what argument is the writer making? How does the writer plan to prove his or
her argument to the reader? Remember our discussion about thesis statements and how they
function as roadmaps for the reader. Address these issues in the comments you leave on the
paper.
Step Four: Argument - Take a look at the writers argument. Did he or she convince you of the
merit of their argument? On their google doc, highlight the evidence the writer provides to
support the claim. Examine the quotations the writer chose. Do they further the writers
argument? What steps can the writer take to strengthen the argument? Address by adding
comments to your partners paper.
Step Five: Development of the Argument - This is a time to look closely at the body paragraphs.
Each should support the thesis statement. Is the argument presented logically from beginning to
end? Is there anywhere in the paper where the logic falters? Did the writer present the evidence
in such a way that it fully supported his or her argument? Does any of the evidence presented
require further explanation or analysis? Address this in your comments.
Step Six: Tone How would you describe the tone of this piece? Identify diction that you find
instrumental in creating the tone. Are there any words or phrases that could be replaced (check
for colloquialisms) to contribute to a more formal tone?
Step Seven: Conventions For this step, I would like you to check for the five most common
errors I see when I grade papers. They are as follows:
1. Second Person Point of View (As you can see . . ., When you study . . ., etc.)
2. Quotations that are not introduced
3. Information that is not cited correctly
4. Shifts between past and present tense
5. Solid transitions from one paragraph to the next.
Assessment
Share with me a copy of your partners rough draft with your comments via google docs. I will be
evaluating your editing suggestions using the rubric below:

Phase 2: Evidence of Assigning:

This is a screenshot from my class Canvas page where the assignment is located.

Here is a link to the presentation I talked through with my students in order to guide them
through this process:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0f_RTMHGgtxT0VjYklKZ3RCSm8/view?usp=sharing
Student Example One:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xQS7ZZCjbngWzYK4BbF48XVLeizeM5oZZsCW_na2IxM
/edit?usp=sharing
Rubric With Score for Student Example One:

My comments to the student:

Dear B.,
Thank you so much for your detailed feedback of K.s paper. It is readily apparent that
you took the time to read her paper thoroughly and worked to supply her with constructive
comments that will allow her to greatly improve her paper. I do want to point out that the
sentence K. used as her thesis was her research question. Remember, a thesis statement can
lead into a thesis, but cannot serve as a thesis. The thesis statement should always state our
position on our topics. Lets keep this in mind moving forward. Thank you so much!
Mrs. Finucan
Second Student Example:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lee7KXyF4FbxTwN0dTEhmevQjwposRDlCQ1xvtU3ukc/e
dit?usp=sharing
Rubric for Student Two:

My Comments to Student Two:

Dear N.,
Thank you for reviewing A.s paper. You did a nice job catching several errors in conventions.
Perhaps most importantly, you pointed out that A.s thesis statement was not serving as
roadmap of the paper. There were two pages of her paper that have no comments. It is vital
when doing a peer review that we give due attention to each section of the work. I also noticed
that your stronger comments were made when we worked in class. The comments that you
added around midnight were more slapdash and I can imagine you were exhausted when you

were adding them. Moving forward, it is vital that you allow yourself enough time and rest to give
your best to your assignments.
Link to Student Example Three (please see pages 1-5 only. These partners submitted both their
papers on one google doc.)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pwcSeDV5qcReP51W67guPvohCinJ_kS7HTePqY1ltro/e
dit?usp=sharing
Rubric for Student Example Three:

My Comments to Student Three:

Dear S.,
Thank you for taking the time to peer review S.s research paper. After reading his paper myself,
I can see that it was a challenge. I applaud your detailed evaluation of his introduction. I also
appreciate the fact that you were able to reconize that S. needs more cited information to
support the assertions his paper is filled with. Where you lost some points was in the fact that

your encouraged S. to correct his spelling and grammar, but did not point out what corrections
needed to be made. Going forward, please be as detailed as you can in assisting your peers.