Description
Critiquing work is an integral aspect of improving your own writing. It teaches you what to look for when editing your own work. A constructive critique takes at least half an hour to write. You will need to review the essay more than once and take notes about aspects you like as well as what’s not working. Be sure to set aside some time for careful thought about the essays you are critiquing.
You will write your critique in the form of a personal letter to the author. Keep in mind that this is only a rough draft and the author will continue improving the essay before it is due in Module 9. You can help the author by offering specific, constructive, honest, and supportive critiques.
Before you post each of your peer letters, check them to make sure you have mentioned at least one specific thing you liked about the essay, made two specific suggestions for improvement, and posed several questions you had about the essay that will stimulate further revision. See the guidelines below.
After finding your workshop group in the Discussion, write a 250?500 word letter to the classmates in your assigned workshop group.
Attention
Please use the following format for your letter:
Dear [Classmate’s Name],
Paragraph 1: What’s Working
It’s important that you start your letter with what’s working well in the essay. In the first paragraph, quote a specific moment that has stayed with you, and explain why. Giving specific praise is important because authors need to discover their strengths so they can nurture those aspects of their writing.
Paragraph 2: Revision Suggestions
In the next paragraph(s), talk about how the author could improve the essay. Point out places where you struggled with the essay or where you saw revision opportunities. Use the following list of questions to help you figure out what you want to say in each of your peer letters:
Which process is being analyzed?
What is the purpose of this process analysis? Does the purpose appear in a thesis statement? If not, suggest a thesis.
Why is the author interested in analyzing this process?
Who is the audience? How can you tell? Are you part of the audience?
What type of background information is included? Is it enough for a reader with limited knowledge about the subject to understand the process? If not, what seems missing?
Which terms (if any) need to be defined more clearly? The reader should be able to complete the process. Do you feel able to do so?
How did the author organize the steps or phases of the process? Did he or she put them in a certain order?
Where do you have difficulty following the steps of the process (if anywhere)?
Which examples are provided? In which places would you like to see more examples included for clarity?
Did the author use TEA paragraph structure in the body paragraphs? Were any of the paragraphs missing elements of TEA?
Has the author incorporated at least two relevant, reputable research sources? If not, what further research might the author explore?
Are the research sources cited in MLA style with both in-text citations and a Works Cited listing? If not, what corrections need to be made?
How can the reader evaluate whether or not the purpose has been met? This information should appear in the conclusion.
Paragraph 3: Questions
