Revising/Editing Checklist (Linda Anstendig)

These are questions that students might ask of themselves and then of each other in critiquing drafts of writing assignments.

1. Does the essay have a clear focus? Are the ideas insightful?
2. Does the introduction tell clearly what the paper is about?
3. Do the introduction and conclusion fit together?
4. Is there enough pertinent information? Are the ideas well supported with evidence?
5. Is the essay well organized? Do all the parts fit together?
6. Does the writer have too much information? Too little explanation?
7. Does the writer answer the question and/or fulfill the assignment?
8. Does the writer consider his or her audience?
9. If research is used, is the essay properly documented? Is a works cited page included?
10. Is word choice clear and precise?
11. Is the essay carefully proofread? Is it free from errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation?

Two Basic Questions to always try to answer:

1. What is the writer trying to say?
2. How effectively has the writer succeeded in saying it?

Peer Response Sheet (Linda Anstendig)

Name of Writer: ________________________
Name of Reader: _______________________

Please write your answers briefly but clearly so that the writer can benefit. Return to writer. Writer should staple to essay and hand in.

1. How effective is the introduction and thesis? What could be done to make it stronger?
2. Does the essay leave you with any unanswered questions? Are more information and specific details needed? Explain.
3. How effective is the conclusion? What could be done to make it stronger?
4. What is the best part? Why?
5. What would you change?
6. How would you evaluate the essay on a scale of 1-5 (best)?
7. Other suggestions about any of the following:
   1. paragraphing and/or organization-
   2. sentence structure and crafting-
   3. quotations-
   4. grammar and/or spelling-
   5. language and/or vocabulary-

Philosophy Assignment with Subject Matter
Review Criteria Form and Sample Student Peer Review (Gerard Vallone)

INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

People, places, and language were factors that influenced the development of Anna’s abilities to think (philosophically). Considering the contents of Section 1 in Christian’s text focusing on Chapter 1-3, especially the section “Critical Skills,” and Chapter 1-4, especially “How to Do Synoptic Philosophy,” on one or at most two sides of a page:

1. State what you think is involved in thinking philosophically.
2. Select one incident involving either people, places or language from Mr. God, This is Anna, which shows her thinking philosophically.
3. Say why you think the incident you chose is an example of philosophical thinking: i.e., indicate the “places” in the example where you can “see” her thinking philosophically.

SUBJECT MATTER
REVIEW CRITERIA

1. Mr. God, This is Anna

   1. Definition of key term __________________________________

   2. Example ============================================

   3. Reason(s) for example ------------------------------------------------------

2. Epistemology Paper

   1. Explanation of Processes ________________________________

   2. Aspects that may be believed =============================

   3. Aspects that my be known --------------------------------------------------

3. Question of Concept Paper
   1. Is the question clearly stated?
   2. Is the question a question of concept or a mixed question? If mixed, what are its components, and is the conceptual aspect clearly isolated?
   3. How is the paper developed?
   4. Is there a resolution?

1. Reader’s Assistance
   1. Evaluation based upon specified criteria
      1. Typed-yes
      2. Length-one page, no specific requirement
      3. Structure
         1. Introduction-opens with a topic and gives her meaning on that topic
         2. Body-goes into detail about two examples of the topic
         3. Conclusion-summarizes the details on the examples and subject
      4. Language
         1. I found no errors for spelling.
         2. I found no errors for punctuation.
         3. I found no grammatical errors.
   2. Clarity of Expression: The clarity of expression was met in the introduction with the reader's view on thinking philosophically.
   3. Quality of Examples
      1. Example one was clearly defined with a question, then the question was analyzed, and a conclusion was defined.
      2. I am confused about example two. I understand what the writer was trying to say, but I don't understand how "Anna" came up with the conclusion that the "flower" did not want to be of a yellow color, and how she applied it to her first question.
   4. Personal Understanding: I believe the writer had a personal understanding of thinking philosophically.
   5. Uninformed Reader's Comprehension: I think the writer should explain the ideas Anna learned about transmitting and reflecting light, and how she compares that process to the "flower."
2. Writer's Response
   1. Grade based upon reader's review: I think my paper should receive a ____according to the reader's review.
   2. Comments on reader's review, agreement, disagreement, etc., and reasons for them: I seem to disagree with the reader's comment on how I should work on my conclusion. The reader states that I do not bring my paper to a close or tie everything together. I feel I tied everything together in my example on Mr. God, This Is Anna. Also the conclusion on the book is intertwined with my own conclusion on "thinking philosophically."
   3. Further work, if any, on paper based on reader's review and writer's response: I analyzed my paper again to see if I could add to the conclusion or tie everything together as the reader suggested. I can not see how, without seeing to repeat myself by what I wrote in the body of the paper. My paper is very detailed on how Anna is thinking philosophically. I did, however, find one grammatical error, and added a small phrase in the beginning that made the paper more understandable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS