Thursday Mr. Zartler had a guest teacher.
Students worked on three projects
1) Peer Review of rough drafts (work sheet at bottom of this entry
2) Students watch
this video on the 1920s and took special note of information related to:
A) How do the various characters
personalities seem to be related to the major events of history?
B) During the 20s US govt policy favored whom?
(business? individuals? rich? poor? west? south? east? europe?)
3) Students were given a graphing data related to the 1920s activity. (available in class)
Peer Review activity
Research
Paper Peer Response and Self Evaluation
Name
__________________________________________________ Date __________________
Period ________
Peer evaluators (full
name printed and initialed):
_______________________________________________________
___________________________________________ __________________________________________
Your goal today is to use
time with your peers to evaluate your work so far on your research project. The
evaluative feedback you generate today should be enough to guide you to next
steps. For each person in your group you should follow the same protocol to get
the best possible feedback. Begin by underlining your Thesis statement (and
section thesis statements) and all topic sentences in your draft (they should
be obvious by there level of organization in an outline, but for ease you may
wish to highlight them as well.
In two to three sentences
explain to your group what you are trying to explain or prove in your essay.
In three to five
sentences explain why you choose this particular topic.
Read your thesis
statement to your group (Yes you SHOULD have a clear one at this point!); does
it answer a “why?” question?
Yes / NO Notes for revision:
Read through your entire
rough draft or outline. Your peers will listen and provide feedback on whether
or not there is a complete argument presented in your paper. They may find that
some parts are complete and others are not. Feedback on “organization” is the
focus here. Feedback on fluency is inappropriate for an outline, and should
only be given if requested by someone with a full rough draft. First the author
reads what they have, then:
Peers ask questions about
the subject; author records the questions here:
Next peers provide more
open-ended feedback on organization (divided by parts as appropriate):
-- Continued on Back --
Point
to the facts you discovered and included in your paper. Make sure that each is
connected to it’s source. Work with your peers to ensure that you have a
_________ primary document __________ (properly
cited)
_________ academic source #1 __________ (properly
cited) ____________________________ title/ author
_________ academic source #2 __________ (properly
cited) ____________________________ title/ author
_________ academic source #3 __________ (properly
cited) ____________________________ title/ author
Are
there End Notes page? Yes / No Are
the end notes in order of appearance in the paper? Yes / No
Is
there an annotated bibliography? Yes / No Is
the annotated bibliography in alphabetical order? Yes / No
Is
there a conclusion? Yes / No
Does
the conclusion summarize (ok)? Yes /
No or expand and connect the topic
(better)? Yes / No
After
reviewing the paper or outline what questions do your peers still have about
your subject?