Tag Archives: peer review

Reverse Outlining

Reverse Outlining

Whether you are reading published scholarship or another student’s paper, reverse outlining can help you process information by distilling the main ideas of a text into short, clear statements. Put simply, when reverse outlining the reader tries to summarize each paragraph of a text in two sentences. This process will not only help you analyze the material you are reading, it will also allow you to organize your response. You may use reverse outlining to revise your own work, revise the work of others, or to annotate a text.

Reverse outlining follows a two-step, repeatable process:

  1. In the left-hand margin, write down the topic of each paragraph. Try to use as few words as possible.
  • When reading, these notes should work as quick references for future study or in-class discussion.
  • When revising your own work or the work of your peers, these notes should tell you if each paragraph is focused and clear.
  1. In the right-hand margin, write down how the paragraph topic advances the overall argument of the text. Again, be brief.
  • When reading, these notes allow you to follow the logic of the essay, making it easier for you to analyze or discuss later.
  • When revising your own work, these notes should tell you if each paragraph fits in the overall organization of your paper. You may also notice that paragraphs should be shifted after completing this step.

Remember to be brief. You should try to complete each step in 5-10 words. When reading a published text, you should be able to summarize the topic and the manner of support quickly; if you can’t, you should consult a dictionary, an encyclopedia, or other resources to help you understand the content. When reading your own work or the work of a peer, you should consider revising any section that does not have a clear point that is easy to re-articulate.

When reading a potential source, you should consider which points you agree or disagree with and make notes that help you formulate your opinion. However, when reading work with the goal of revision, the objective is to communicate an understanding of the writer’s main ideas, not to critique or correct these points. When reading your own work or the work of a peer, if the paragraph does contain an easily identifiable point, but it does not relate to the thesis or topic of the paper, it may be appropriate to remove this section entirely.

This exercise can be expanded by rewriting/typing your outline with comments or further suggestions, but writing in the margin might be sufficient.

 

This exercise is adapted from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/689/1/ by The OWL at Purdue

Peer review workshop

Peer Workshop

The purpose of this workshop is to improve your writing on both the global, and local levels. This means you are not only correcting grammar and mechanics, but content as well. Read your partner’s paper twice. On the first reading, DO NOT make any corrections. Just read the paper and take in the story in the same way you would as if you were reading an academic article. On the second reading, answer the following questions:

  1. What is the point of this paper? What is the thesis? Does the thesis clearly reflect the point? Is the thesis a claim that argues the author’s opinion on the subject of the paper, or a statement of fact?
  2. Is there evidence of research in this paper? Are the sites reliable? Are the sources clearly cited? Check the works cited page, are the sources listed there as well?
  3. Does the author utilize summary, paraphrase and quotation? Do they over use any particular device? Have the quotations been properly incorporated?
  4. Are the supporting points clear, relevant, and well organized? Would it benefit the reader to re-organize this essay?
  5. Highlight or underline examples of good, compelling details in the paper. Are there any instances where the author could use more detail? Less?
  6. What point(s) in this essay were you most convinced by? Why? What did you learn from reading this essay?
  7. What suggestions for improvement can you offer to the writer? Identify the weaknesses and help consider corrections.
  8. Did the use of multimedia enhance the writer’s argument. Can the author incorporate more/less media in effective ways?
  9. Finally, alert the reader to any spelling, grammar and mechanical errors they made.

Now switch papers! Ask me if you have any questions.