Thursday and Friday April 27 and 28

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?