Your instructor may arrange a peer review session in class or online, where you can exchange drafts with your classmates and give each other a thoughtful critical reading, pointing out what works well and suggesting ways to improve the draft. A good critical reading does three things:
It lets the writer know how well the reader understands the causal analysis.
It praises what works best.
It indicates where the draft could be improved and makes suggestions for how to improve it.
One strategy for evaluating a draft is to use the basic features of the causal analysis as a guide.
A PEER REVIEW GUIDE
Click the Peer Review Guide to download.
431
| A Well- |
How effectively does the writer present the subject? Summarize: Tell the writer what you understand the subject to be and why he or she thinks it is important and worth analyzing. Praise: Give an example of something in the draft that you think will especially interest the intended readers and help them understand the subject. Critique: Tell the writer if you have any confusion or uncertainty about the subject. What further explanation, examples, or statistics do you need to understand it better? If you can think of a more interesting way to present the subject, share your ideas with the writer. |
| A Well- |
How plausible are the proposed causes or effects, and how well does the writer support the causal analysis? Summary: Identify the possible causes or effects the writer argues are the most plausible and interesting. Praise: Tell the writer which cause or effect seems most convincing. Point to any support (such as a particular example, a statistic, a research study, or a graph) that you think is especially strong. Critique: Tell the writer if any of the causes or effects seem too obvious or minor, and if you think an important cause or effect has been left out. Where the support seems lacking or unconvincing, explain what is missing or seems wrong. If the reasoning seems flawed, what makes you think so? |
| An Effective Response to Objections and Alternative Causes or Effects |
How effectively does the writer respond to readers’ objections and alternative causes or effects? Summary: Identify the objections or alternative causes or effects to which the writer responds. Praise: Point out any response you think is especially effective, and tell the writer what makes you think so. For example, indicate where the support is especially credible and convincing. Critique: Point to any objections or alternative causes or effects that the writer could have responded to more effectively, and suggest how the response could be improved. Also indicate if the writer has overlooked any serious objections. |
432
| A Clear, Logical Organization |
How clear and logical is the causal analysis? Summary: Underline the thesis statement and topic sentences. Praise: Give an example of where the essay succeeds in being especially clear and easy to follow — for example, in its overall organization, its use of key terms and transitions, or its use of visuals. Critique: Point to any passages where the writing could be clearer, where topic sentences or transitions could be added, or where key terms could be repeated to make the essay easier to follow. Try suggesting a better beginning or a more effective ending. |
Before concluding your peer review, be sure to address any of the writer’s concerns that have not been discussed already.
Making Comments Electronically Most word processing software offers features that allow you to insert comments directly into the text of someone else’s document. Many readers prefer to make their comments this way because it tends to be faster than writing on hard copy and space is virtually unlimited; it also eliminates the process of deciphering handwritten comments. Where such features are not available, simply typing comments directly into a document in a contrasting color can provide the same advantages.