Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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? The author only has one
source in the introduction. Some of the conflicts and areas of debate are clear from the
authors introduction.
6. Does the author get off track? If so, where? No, the author does not get off track.
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? Yes the
author cites resource work in the introduction. He used MLA format.
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? Yes, the organization of the introduction does make sense. The
introduction is structured as an overview of the authors research and another author section
where the author describes himself and talks about his research choice for his blog. I believe
the entire structure of the introduction is strong.
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. Yes, the author
considers the audience well by having an author section where he describes himself.
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. The author has no multimodal components.
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? Yes, I believe the author maintains a clear academic voice and tone
while still engaging the audience. There is a good balance between academic and personal
because the personal side of the introduction is covered by the author section and the
academic is covered by the introduction paragraph.
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? Yes.
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 It is not clear that the sources are
intentionally arranged. I can tell because there is no indication that the sources are arranged
specifically anywhere. There are links to the websites they come from but they are not
hyperlinked.
3. Does each entry have a well-written editors summary of each source and a editors
commentary following the summary? Yes.
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. The author uses a picture of a pig looking up for
his TOC. I believe this is helpful to the purpose of the Readers Guide because this image can
make you feel sorry for pigs (even though they are delicious).
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? Yes.
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? Yes
4. Is the design of this page appropriate for the authors audience? Does it help the reader follow
their line of inquiry? Yes.
Reflection:
1.
Does the project reflection provide sophisticated detail and depth? Which pieces of detail do
you find most successful/helpful? Yes the project reflection provides sophisticated detail and
depth. What I found the most successful was how the author allowed his readers to form their
own opinions.
2. Does the reflection offer a thorough depiction of the role of inquiry in the authors project
development? Yes because the author reveals his thought process.
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. The authors determined rhetorical
situation was finding out what ethical eating was. First the author found out what it was and
then relayed his findings to the audience. The author also spoke to his audience by
elaborating what he himself was thinking during his research.
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? No because I have not sent
the PRQ yet.
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. I think the author does a good job of addressing the
audience and letting us know how he was thinking each step of the way with his research. Two
things that I think the author should work on is his grammar in some areas and a longer
introduction. This can be improved by just looking over and reading his information one or two
more times and by just adding a bit more information to his introduction.
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. Two things that I would like to hear more about is why he stuck with his
topic once he found out that it was not what he thought it was and the positives of his topic (if
there is anymore). The author does not deal with the introduction as much as I would like and
I think that element is important because the introduction is supposed to get me on the same
page as the author. Overall though, I think the introduction is solid.
Indicate where you think your peer will fall on the Rubric below based on where they are at now.
Grading Rubric
RG = Readers Guide
1 = Below Expectations
2 = Satisfactory
3 = Proficient
4 = Exemplary
Content: RG lacks a
focus and/or few to no
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.
Conventions: RG has
obvious errors that distract
the reader.
Reflection: Project
reflection lacks detail and
has significant gaps,
failing to provide an
adequate picture of project
movement.
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