UWRT 1103

Ashley Marcum, Instructor

Peer Review QuestionsReaders Guide
Directions: Respond to the following questions thoroughly, respectfully, and constructively. Please
write your full responses in black text to these questions in this document and save your revised
document as Last Name PRQs (Peer Review Questions for Last Name.) For example, my PRQs for
Johnny Appleseed would be named MarcumPRQsAppleseed. Please indicate on your paper your name
and the name of the author that you are responding to. Note, you should also make revision
suggestions, comments, and responses on the paper itself using the review tool in Word. You are
working together to improve each others writing: be sure that the kinds of responses you are giving
are the kinds of responses you would like to receive on your paper. Everyone appreciates both praise
and constructive criticism.

Homepage:
1. Read and review the homepage. Based on the visuals and text, what do you expect the topic,
tone, voice, stance, etc. of this Readers Guide to take. Is there a clear title to the Readers
Guide? Does the title need work or already bring the reader in? Is the focus of the collection
clear from the homepage? Against coddling. No.
2. Are there any multimodal components of the Homepage? If not, what do you think the author
could add? What ideas can you help them brainstorm for images, videos, etc. for their
homepage? Yes, the included video was a nice addition.
Introduction:
1. How does the author begin? Does the beginning of the editors overview draw you in? Does
he/she appeal to their audience to get them to buy in or understand what is at stake for
them? What could the author do to better answer the So What question? He started with a
summary. The opening statement is effective.
2. Does the author introduce who they are, their purpose with the readers guide, and explain the
focus their readers guide? Yes
3. Does the author provide an overview of the larger points of the conversation which references
the major voices directly (this is not an essay -- sources should talk to each other. For each
paragraph, write a sentence or two of summary explaining what the author says and how they
are saying it. No.
4. Does the introduction stay focused on a main purpose that that frames the discussion for the
audience (this is not a generic overview)
5. Does the introduction make connections among the sources and their rhetorical situations in
the collection? Where are they especially strong making these connections? Is it clear from
the introduction that the author has considered the exigence, rhetor, audience, and
constraints for each of his/her sources? Does the introduction do more than just describe what
one source says and then what the next source says and so on? Can you tell from the
introduction the complexities of the Parlor conversation by sharing how multiple sources
address/discuss the same aspects of the conversation? Are the tensions, conflicts,
inconsistencies, and areas of debate clear from the editors introduction? What are the
primary complexities that your peer focuses his/her collection on?
6. Does the author get off track? If so, where?
7. If the author cites any resource work in the introduction, is it properly cited and documented?
What style are they using? Is it consistent and applied throughout the introduction?
8. Does the organization of the introduction make sense? How has the author structured the
introduction? If the structure seems either confusing or strong indicate where you see this.
How would you improve it?

9. Does the author consider the audience? Indicate how the author could address the audience
better or where the author does a good job of considering the audience.
10.If the author has used any multimodal components are they helpful to their Readers Guide
purpose? What tone or attitude do the visuals or videos help to establish? Do they add to or
detract from the work? Say why.
11.Does the author maintain a clear academic voice and tone (while remaining engaged with the
reader and maintaining his/her own voice)? What balance between academic and personal is
the author able to find?
Annotated Table of Contents:
1. Does each entry have bibliographic information for each source so that readers know what
type and where each source comes from?
2. Is it clear that the sources are intentionally arranged (by depth or complexity, by category, by
published date, etc.)? How can you tell? Did they tell you in the introduction or reflection? Is
it clear on the Annotated TOC itself? Are there links to the
3. Does each entry have a well-written editors summary of each source and a editors
commentary following the summary?
4. If the author has used any multimodal components in the TOC are they helpful to their
Readers Guide purpose? What tone or attitude do the visuals or videos help to establish? Do
they add to or detract from the work? Say why. Make any suggestions you have for improving
the use of multimodal elements on this page.
Research Maps and Blogs:
1.

Since you have already reviewed this page, just make sure that the author has addressed any
concerns that you indicated earlier.
2. Does the author clearly demonstrate their inquiry process through their Research Map and
Blogs?
3. Does the author use the maps and blogs to show sophisticated, consistent use of research and
writing to generate questions and seek answers through varied sources as a means of
discovery and deeper understanding of the topic?
4. Is the design of this page appropriate for the authors audience? Does it help the reader follow
their line of inquiry?
Reflection:
1.

Does the project reflection provide sophisticated detail and depth? Which pieces of detail do
you find most successful/helpful?
2. Does the reflection offer a thorough depiction of the role of inquiry in the authors project
development?
3. Explain in a few sentences what the authors determined rhetorical situation was and how they
took it into consideration in writing their Readers Guide.
4. Does the reflection describe what revisions the author made after the peer responses and
conferencing? What impact does the author feel those revisions make on the finished
product? What process helped them make their revision choices?
Overall project:
1. List two things you think the author does a good job on. List two things you think the author
should work on. Make at least one suggestion for how she/he might go about improving each
of those aspects of the Readers Guide.
2. List two things you would like to hear more about. What does the author not deal with as
much or as well as youd like? Explain what and why you think these elements are important
enough to include.

Indicate where you think your peer will fall on the Rubric below based on where they are at now.

Grading Rubric
RG = Readers Guide

Project Artifacts = Research Blog, Research Map, RG, and Reflection

1 = Below Expectations

2 = Satisfactory

3 = Proficient

4 = Exemplary

Inquiry: Project artifacts

are missing and/or the
project lacks evidence of
inquiry movement.

Inquiry: Project artifacts

reveal some use of research
and writing toward discovery
but the movement is unclear or
has gaps.

Inquiry: Project artifacts

reveal clear and consistent
use of research and writing
toward discovery.

Inquiry: Project artifacts reveal sophisticated, consistent use

of research and writing to generate questions and seek
answers through varied sources as a means of discovery and
deeper understanding of the topic.

Content: RG lacks a
focus and/or few to no
connections are made for
the reader.

Content: RG has a focus but it

is not consistently woven
throughout the text or lacks
grounding in research. Some
connections are made for the
reader.

Content: RG components
work together to establish a
focus determined by the
writer through synthesis of
research. Multiple
connections are made for the
reader.

Content: RG components work together to establish a focus

determined by the writer through sophisticated synthesis of
research. All parts of the text (introduction, source summaries,
source commentaries, source grouping) work together to reveal
complex connections that are clearly and fully translated
(explained) between sources and viewpoints for the reader.

Conventions: RG has
obvious errors that distract
the reader.

Conventions: RG has been

revised and fine-tuned but
some errors and/or
awkwardness remain OR there
are inconsistencies in citations.

Conventions: RG has clearly

been revised and fine-tuned.
All sources are cited and
referenced in one citation
style.

Conventions: RG has been extensively, skillfully revised and

fine-tuned for Vitality, clarity, and grammar. All sources are
properly cited and referenced consistently using one citation
style.

Reflection: Project
reflection lacks detail and
has significant gaps,
failing to provide an
adequate picture of project
movement.

Reflection: Project reflection

has some detail but there are
gaps that hinder a full picture
of the aspects of the project
(inquiry, rhetorical situation,
revision).

Reflection: Project reflection

has adequate detail and depth,
offering insights into aspects
of inquiry, the rhetorical
situation, and revision
choices.

Reflection: Project reflection has sophisticated detail and

depth, offering a thorough picture of the role of inquiry in the
project development, how the rhetorical situation impacted
the design/writing of the RG, and role revision choices played
in the final product.

GRADING SCALE:
16 = 100

9 = 80

14-15 = 95

8 = 75

12-13 = 90

7 = 70

10-11 = 85

6 = 65

5 or lower = 60