Academic Discourse

ACADEMIC DISCOURSE

Developing Effective Discourse

An Ongoing Discussion

Peer Reviewing Rough Drafts

Professional writing is a production driven affair. As you may have experienced when a speech or paper is due, communication needs to be generated at speed when needed. Of course, speed is relative. A book may be the result of years of steady work. However complex the piece, however, the requirements of high quality communication is always much the same: a really solid sense of purpose, occasion and audience.

Obviously, writers need to have a clear understanding of their subject matter. It is impossible to explain to others things we do not clearly understand ourselves. The interesting thing, of course, is that it is the nature of teaching, whether orally or in writing, that it is the best possible way to come to understand the material ourselves.

Writing and Revising. Though we do not always realize it, good writing generally goes through the following process:

Explore, Focus, Draft, Revise, Edit, Conclude

Clear, effective writing motivates the audience to positive involvement. In professional writing, this can be banked in terms of money, time, and personal success. Given how important this is, why is communication excellence not the norm? Obviously, production writing means that the work is standardized as much as possible. Unfortunately, it also means that writing tics, clichés, and repetitiousness creeps in.

I know what I mean!
Writers do not see or hear their own writing as others do. In part, that's because we can think faster than we can write. So, everything doesn't always get on the page. And, we often forget to put everything in. Try, for example, explaining step by step how to brush your teeth, something you do every day. Now, ask someone to act it out, to brush his or her teeth while you read the directions out loud, adding not one single motion not in the instructions. It's very, very difficult to add every single instruction, and equally difficult to know what you can safely leave out. But, when you try it yourself, it seems to work perfectly.

Proofreading our own work is very much like that. We know quite well what we meant to say, and act on that rather then what is actually there. It does help to do two things:

Read the piece out loud. Even better: ask someone else to read it aloud to you. You will have a better chance of noticing something than you would if you scanned it.
Put some time between the writing and editing process. Go do something else; sleep on it. That will divorce you from the text a bit, so you may perceive of what you actually wrote rather than what you intended.
Get someone else to read it and do sayback about what she or he understood you to mean. Ask him or her to tell you where things read well, and where they get confusing. Where would the reader like to hear more?
Proofread carefully for mechanical errors. It's awfully hard to find your own errors, seeing as you do the text as you expect it to be. This is such a universal problem that I know some writers who resort to reading their material upside down and backwards. Even after you run spell check, proof again. The problem could actually be a word, just not the word you meant.

Peer Review

General Directions:

Writer: Distributes or post the material without comment. It is especially important to resist the urge to offer disclaimers or explain the status of the paper. The paper must be allowed to speak for itself, regardless of whether it is a very rough draft or a nearly finished piece.

Reviewer: Remember that you are not ultimately responsible for the piece. Thus, it is not your job to 'fix' it, simply to give feedback. Read as you would want your own work to be handled, neither too kindly to be of use nor to harshly to be hearable.

1. Skim the piece quickly to get a general sense of what it is about. Then immediately write a one sentence summary of the piece. That way, the writer can easily see if the focus is off track. If the reviewer doesn't respond as the writer intended in a first quick read through, the piece needs to be reworked.

2. Praise. Reexamine the piece and selects something positive to point out. This could be anything from a striking word or expression to a vivid image or a meaningful concept. Tell the writer about one strong feature of the paper.

3. Describe all of your reactions to the paper, working through it a bit at a time. This can be most easily managed using the Comments tool in Word. Do not evaluate or suggest corrections at this point. Simply describe, as objectively as possible, the spontaneous reactions that you experience during the reading.

4. Note: Now, give the piece another read through and comment upon any problems. Individual comments specific to a sentence or paragraph should be added as comment lines within the text. Broader issues should go at the bottom with the previous general notations. Remember that it is not the reviewer's task to rewrite the piece or fix things. You are not the second author.

[top]

One way to avoid the pitfalls of peer review is to use the "I heard, I noticed, I wondered" method. With these prompts, you can provide useful feedback to a writer without being too biting in your criticism.

I heard...
As a reviewer, first try to summarize what you think the piece was about. This is the easy part. Tell the writer what you saw as the story or the main idea. As a writer, listen to this section, and try to hear whether what is heard is what you were trying to communicate.
I noticed...
As a reviewer, tell the author about some of the things that attracted your attention. What worked well? What details seemed especially vivid or striking? What will you remember about this paper? As a writer, think about why the reviewer noticed these things, and how you can make all your writing as effective.
I wondered...
As a reviewer, did you have any questions when you finished reading? Did you not understand what something meant, or why it was included? Did something bother or disturb you? Did you suspect something might have worked better another way? This section is your chance to ask the writer all these questions. It's best to do so in writing, and to remember that the writer is in some way wedded to this document. She or he is trying to be objective, really, really trying. But it's hard, and the service you are performing is a huge kindness.

As a writer, don't for a moment think that what the reviewer is trying to do for you is easy. It's hard, hard work to try to figure out what the reader would like to know...what's not there that should be. What's there that's getting in the way. Honor the reader.

Try to answer the reviewer's questions. Look at your writing again, and see if there is any way to make those points clearer to a reader. And, check your ego at the door. Try not to see the writing as your own sweet baby-child. It's just a bunch of words that got stuck on a page, O.K.? It's not an extension of your ego, an infant to whom you have given laborious birth. an extension of your DNA. So, don't get all defensive.
[top]

Some examples of peer review from classmates (good and bad). Consider how you would respond to them.

I noticed that I can't see ANY of the links on your homepage. Your link and background color are the same, try using white links on the blue background. I also noticed that you do not have anything in your I Am. You need to get that done, the marking period is almost out. You also don't have anything done in your book review. In fact, it still says "your paper" and "br1".

I saw that your poem only has ONE FREAKING LINE! Not even a stanza. I understand poems require inspiration, but come on, man, one line? You're lazy and your work stinks!

I am wondering, why are you suddenly talking about banking, when there is not really anything leading up to it? That isn't even part of the assignment. It seems to be a big copy/paste from somebody else's site. Please, let me know when you get your stuff together. you could have all the talent in the world, and no one will ever know if you do not do the work to show it.

Where's the transition and thesis sentence in this section? I'm not sure where we're going here. Maybe this material should not be the beginning of a new paragraph, but it also needs something moved into the argument that just isn't there right now. Also, the third paragraph goes on and on and on and..., so I couldn't maintain any sense of the focus and lost energy as well.

Nice paper. Good job!!!! Best, A Student. [Note: those are nice things to say, but this isn't really a peer review. It's a lazy pretence of one.

Wow, I really liked you paper! I have a couple things that might be helpful: I've highlighted what seems to be a run-on, but I don't think that's the larger problem in that area. Maybe try rewriting that whole paragraph so it is easier to read. The highlighted sentence was a little confusing to me, perhaps clarify and expand a bit. I wanted to know more about the way your boss handled the ethics problem. Also, do you have an example of one that's handled well, and perhaps something about just what the law is and/or the rule in your company? Could you expand a bit into those areas? I realized as I read that I really have no idea what the norm or the law is. Overall a great paper, I hope my suggestions help. If not, just ignore.

I just love the way you write. Could you send me a picture of yorself? You're obviously a really sensitive, intelligent person. By the way, would you like to hook up for drinks some night? I'd love to get to know you better.

[top]

Don't Go Here! These are some examples of poor peer review:

I hated your work, and you are a bad person, lazy, stupid, etc.
Here, the reviewer is being very harsh, speaking personally, and not offering any comments that will lead to productive changes.

I loved your material. By the way, you have beautiful eyes. Are you free for lunch?
This critic is more interested in the writer than in the work.

Your essay is OK, but mine is better.
This person is making the review process competitive, and acting as an opponent, rather than a helper.

I thought your writing was interesting.
This writer is using a very popular word in peer review, but "interesting" doesn't really say much. The author in this case would not know what the reader found interesting or why it was interesting. Try to be specific in your comments.

Responding to Review

The proper response to your peer reviewer is a simple, "thank you." Never argue. Never try to explain yourself. "What I meant was," is an absolutely useless piece of information—except as evidence to yourself that you really do need to revise.

Writers so identify writing with self that it can sometimes be difficult to hear criticism as anything other than a personal attack. That minimizes the chance for real improvement. Peer Review can help here. Painful as it sometimes is, so can objective grading. If you get comments that bother you, stick them in your desk until you can calm down a bit. Then, sit down and read the them carefully. Give them some time to sink in, because you may find yourself becoming defensive of your 'baby' all over again. Usually by the following day, you will be able to get a better sense of exactly how the paper could have been improved or dealt with differently. That is awfully useful information.

One of the best authors I know papered the inside of his coat closet with rejection letters. He would tinker with the pieces to improve them and send them back out to another publisher. Eventually, the rejections became more rare. They never ceased entirely because, quite frankly, they weren't always what the publisher or reviewer had in mind. The same may occasionally happen to your papers. As a way around that, your work will be reviewed by different people and/or groups several times throughout the semester, so that you get used to working with people whose perspective is different. You may not always agree, but try to listen objectively as possible.

Getting to another level with your research and writing means you have to open yourself and your ideas to others with the knowledge that the feedback given is about your writing, not about you personally.

See also

Blackboard Peer review
Reviewing Rough Drafts

[top]

With thanks to Jane Hall, Irene Mueller and Bill Stahl, and the Writing Circle Project at Western Carolina University