After reading your peer’s paper closely, write a 2-page reaction paper (double spaced). Here, you should tell the writer what you felt was particularly strong about the work. Give suggestions about improving sections that need additional work. If you noticed a repeated problem (e.g., making claims without supporting evidence—here that’s discussion of the theorist’s own claims), mention this to the writer in the summary. You are also encouraged to exchange line-by-line feedback in the text of the file (include comments in the paper) You will submit 2 documents: • A copy of their paper on which you have included comments. • A reaction paper (2 pages) which describes what you felt was particularly strong about their work, and areas where you felt they could improve their paper. Grading Criteria: Your peer-review will be evaluated on the quality and thoroughness of your feedback with respect to the assignment requirements above. Criteria and sets of questions to guide your peer review: CONTENT a. Does the introduction make it clear what the topic is and why it is important? b. Does the introduction clearly lay out the argument of the paper? c. Do you understand the set of questions this paper will be answering? Is there a roadmap? d. Does it appear that the appropriate course readings (or others) were reviewed? Is the review thorough and convincing? Are key concepts identified, defined, and operationalized adequately? e. Evaluate the evidence cited in the paper. What kinds of evidence does the writer provide? Are sources of evidence marked (course readings, outside scholarly sources, or other credible primary sources?) f. Does the evidence “back up” the assertions made by the writer? Do they wrongly assume a reader’s existing prior knowledge of a social process or phenomenon that is race/classed/gendered? Does the writer make claims that are not related to the evidence presented or the argument being made? Where? g. Is it clear how evidence contributes to course readings and other literature reviewed? h. Consider the analysis. Are there gaps in logic, where the analysis does not respond to the argument? Are there any places where the writer might provide more thorough analysis? i. Are the overall findings clearly presented, packaged, and pulled together? Is there sufficient evidence presented to provide an answer to the research questions addressed or the critique or contribution the author claims the book has made? j. Consider the analysis. Does the writer clearly interpret the evidence relative to? arguments presented in the review of literature /course readings? k. Does the conclusion tie together the main ideas and findings of the paper? Reminder on paper directions: Remember that this paper asked the writer to focus mostly on one contemporary theorist from the first two sections of our book: Herbert Marcuse STYLE a. Is the writing clear? Mark any words, phrases, or sentences that seem confusing or awkward. Write in the margin (or an attached piece of paper) what you think the author means. b. Cross out any unneeded words, especially if you find a sentence confusing. c. Look at the transitions between each paragraph. Are the transitions between paragraphs and sections smooth? Mark awkward or unclear transitions. Are there any places where the movement from one idea to the next seems random or confusing? How might the writer guide the reader from one idea to the next more effectively? d. Note any spelling errors or grammar mistakes. e. Note use of passive voice. If possible, rewrite the sentence using the active voice. 2. ORGANIZATION a. Consider the ways each paragraph relates to the main argument. Is it clear what each paragraph is trying to accomplish? If this is not clear, note in the margin what you think the writer is trying to do with that paragraph (or part of a paragraph). How could the writer more clearly connect unrelated paragraphs to the main argument? b. Note any part (i.e., phrase, sentence, or paragraph) that does not seem to fit with the parts around it. c. Are the readings reviewed just to show reading comprehension, or does they fit justify the data collected? What additional data is needed to appropriately answer the questions?

After reading your peer’s paper closely, write a 2-page reaction paper (double spaced). Here, you should tell the writer what you felt was particularly strong about the work. Give suggestions about improving sections that need additional work. If you noticed a repeated problem (e.g., making claims without supporting evidence—here that’s discussion of the theorist’s own claims), mention this to the writer in the summary. You are also encouraged to exchange line-by-line feedback in the text of the file (include comments in the paper) You will submit 2 documents: • A copy of their paper on which you have included comments. • A reaction paper (2 pages) which describes what you felt was particularly strong about their work, and areas where you felt they could improve their paper. Grading Criteria: Your peer-review will be evaluated on the quality and thoroughness of your feedback with respect to the assignment requirements above. Criteria and sets of questions to guide your peer review: CONTENT a. Does the introduction make it clear what the topic is and why it is important? b. Does the introduction clearly lay out the argument of the paper? c. Do you understand the set of questions this paper will be answering? Is there a roadmap? d. Does it appear that the appropriate course readings (or others) were reviewed? Is the review thorough and convincing? Are key concepts identified, defined, and operationalized adequately? e. Evaluate the evidence cited in the paper. What kinds of evidence does the writer provide? Are sources of evidence marked (course readings, outside scholarly sources, or other credible primary sources?) f. Does the evidence “back up” the assertions made by the writer? Do they wrongly assume a reader’s existing prior knowledge of a social process or phenomenon that is race/classed/gendered? Does the writer make claims that are not related to the evidence presented or the argument being made? Where? g. Is it clear how evidence contributes to course readings and other literature reviewed? h. Consider the analysis. Are there gaps in logic, where the analysis does not respond to the argument? Are there any places where the writer might provide more thorough analysis? i. Are the overall findings clearly presented, packaged, and pulled together? Is there sufficient evidence presented to provide an answer to the research questions addressed or the critique or contribution the author claims the book has made? j. Consider the analysis. Does the writer clearly interpret the evidence relative to? arguments presented in the review of literature /course readings? k. Does the conclusion tie together the main ideas and findings of the paper? Reminder on paper directions: Remember that this paper asked the writer to focus mostly on one contemporary theorist from the first two sections of our book: Herbert Marcuse STYLE a. Is the writing clear? Mark any words, phrases, or sentences that seem confusing or awkward. Write in the margin (or an attached piece of paper) what you think the author means. b. Cross out any unneeded words, especially if you find a sentence confusing. c. Look at the transitions between each paragraph. Are the transitions between paragraphs and sections smooth? Mark awkward or unclear transitions. Are there any places where the movement from one idea to the next seems random or confusing? How might the writer guide the reader from one idea to the next more effectively? d. Note any spelling errors or grammar mistakes. e. Note use of passive voice. If possible, rewrite the sentence using the active voice. 2. ORGANIZATION a. Consider the ways each paragraph relates to the main argument. Is it clear what each paragraph is trying to accomplish? If this is not clear, note in the margin what you think the writer is trying to do with that paragraph (or part of a paragraph). How could the writer more clearly connect unrelated paragraphs to the main argument? b. Note any part (i.e., phrase, sentence, or paragraph) that does not seem to fit with the parts around it. c. Are the readings reviewed just to show reading comprehension, or does they fit justify the data collected? What additional data is needed to appropriately answer the questions?. After reading your peer’s paper closely, write a 2-page reaction paper (double spaced). Here, you should tell the writer what you felt was particularly strong about the work. Give suggestions about improving sections that need additional work.  If you noticed a repeated problem (e.g., making claims without supporting evidence—here that’s discussion of the theorist’s own claims), mention this to the writer in the summary.  You are also encouraged to exchange line-by-line feedback in the text of the file (include comments in the paper)
 
You will submit 2 documents:

• A copy of their paper on which you have included comments.
• A reaction paper (2 pages) which describes what you felt was particularly strong about their work, and areas where you felt they could improve their paper.

 
Grading Criteria: Your peer-review will be evaluated on the quality and thoroughness of your feedback with respect to the assignment requirements above.
 
Criteria and sets of questions to guide your peer review:
 
CONTENT
 

1. Does the introduction make it clear what the topic is and why it is important?

 

1. Does the introduction clearly lay out the argument of the paper?

 

1. Do you understand the set of questions this paper will be answering? Is there a roadmap?

 

1. Does it appear that the appropriate course readings (or others) were reviewed? Is the review thorough and convincing? Are key concepts identified, defined, and operationalized adequately?

 

1. Evaluate the evidence cited in the paper. What kinds of evidence does the writer

 
provide? Are sources of evidence marked (course readings, outside scholarly sources, or other credible primary sources?)
 

1. Does the evidence “back up” the assertions made by the writer? Do they wrongly assume a reader’s existing prior knowledge of a social process or phenomenon that is race/classed/gendered? Does the writer make claims that are not related to the evidence presented or the argument being made? Where?

 

1. Is it clear how evidence contributes to course readings and other literature reviewed?

 

1. Consider the analysis. Are there gaps in logic, where the analysis does not respond to the argument? Are there any places where the writer might provide more thorough analysis?

 

1. Are the overall findings clearly presented, packaged, and pulled together? Is there sufficient evidence presented to provide an answer to the research questions addressed or the critique or contribution the author claims the book has made?

 

1. Consider the analysis. Does the writer clearly interpret the evidence relative to?

 
arguments presented in the review of literature /course readings?
 

1. Does the conclusion tie together the main ideas and findings of the paper?

 
Reminder on paper directions:
 
Remember that this paper asked the writer to focus mostly on one contemporary theorist from the first two sections of our book: Herbert Marcuse
 
 
STYLE
 

1. Is the writing clear? Mark any words, phrases, or sentences that seem confusing or

 
awkward.  Write in the margin (or an attached piece of paper) what you think the author
 
means.
 

1. Cross out any unneeded words, especially if you find a sentence confusing.

 

1. Look at the transitions between each paragraph. Are the transitions between paragraphs and sections smooth? Mark awkward or unclear transitions.  Are there any places where the movement from one idea to the next seems random or confusing?  How might the writer guide the reader from one idea to the next more effectively?

 

1. Note any spelling errors or grammar mistakes.

 

1. Note use of passive voice. If possible, rewrite the sentence using the active voice.

 
 
 

2. ORGANIZATION

 

1. Consider the ways each paragraph relates to the main argument. Is it clear what each

 
paragraph is trying to accomplish?  If this is not clear, note in the margin what you think
 
the writer is trying to do with that paragraph (or part of a paragraph).  How could the
 
writer more clearly connect unrelated paragraphs to the main argument?
 

1. Note any part (i.e., phrase, sentence, or paragraph) that does not seem to fit with the parts around it.

 

1. Are the readings reviewed just to show reading comprehension, or does they fit

 
justify the data collected? What additional data is needed to appropriately answer the questions?
 
 

After reading your peer’s paper closely, write a 2-page reaction paper (double spaced). Here, you should tell the writer what you felt was particularly strong about the work. Give suggestions about improving sections that need additional work. If you noticed a repeated problem (e.g., making claims without supporting evidence—here that’s discussion of the theorist’s own claims), mention this to the writer in the summary. You are also encouraged to exchange line-by-line feedback in the text of the file (include comments in the paper) You will submit 2 documents: • A copy of their paper on which you have included comments. • A reaction paper (2 pages) which describes what you felt was particularly strong about their work, and areas where you felt they could improve their paper. Grading Criteria: Your peer-review will be evaluated on the quality and thoroughness of your feedback with respect to the assignment requirements above. Criteria and sets of questions to guide your peer review: CONTENT a. Does the introduction make it clear what the topic is and why it is important? b. Does the introduction clearly lay out the argument of the paper? c. Do you understand the set of questions this paper will be answering? Is there a roadmap? d. Does it appear that the appropriate course readings (or others) were reviewed? Is the review thorough and convincing? Are key concepts identified, defined, and operationalized adequately? e. Evaluate the evidence cited in the paper. What kinds of evidence does the writer provide? Are sources of evidence marked (course readings, outside scholarly sources, or other credible primary sources?) f. Does the evidence “back up” the assertions made by the writer? Do they wrongly assume a reader’s existing prior knowledge of a social process or phenomenon that is race/classed/gendered? Does the writer make claims that are not related to the evidence presented or the argument being made? Where? g. Is it clear how evidence contributes to course readings and other literature reviewed? h. Consider the analysis. Are there gaps in logic, where the analysis does not respond to the argument? Are there any places where the writer might provide more thorough analysis? i. Are the overall findings clearly presented, packaged, and pulled together? Is there sufficient evidence presented to provide an answer to the research questions addressed or the critique or contribution the author claims the book has made? j. Consider the analysis. Does the writer clearly interpret the evidence relative to? arguments presented in the review of literature /course readings? k. Does the conclusion tie together the main ideas and findings of the paper? Reminder on paper directions: Remember that this paper asked the writer to focus mostly on one contemporary theorist from the first two sections of our book: Herbert Marcuse STYLE a. Is the writing clear? Mark any words, phrases, or sentences that seem confusing or awkward. Write in the margin (or an attached piece of paper) what you think the author means. b. Cross out any unneeded words, especially if you find a sentence confusing. c. Look at the transitions between each paragraph. Are the transitions between paragraphs and sections smooth? Mark awkward or unclear transitions. Are there any places where the movement from one idea to the next seems random or confusing? How might the writer guide the reader from one idea to the next more effectively? d. Note any spelling errors or grammar mistakes. e. Note use of passive voice. If possible, rewrite the sentence using the active voice. 2. ORGANIZATION a. Consider the ways each paragraph relates to the main argument. Is it clear what each paragraph is trying to accomplish? If this is not clear, note in the margin what you think the writer is trying to do with that paragraph (or part of a paragraph). How could the writer more clearly connect unrelated paragraphs to the main argument? b. Note any part (i.e., phrase, sentence, or paragraph) that does not seem to fit with the parts around it. c. Are the readings reviewed just to show reading comprehension, or does they fit justify the data collected? What additional data is needed to appropriately answer the questions?