The Writer’s Responsibilities

Ask Specific Questions: (examples)

• Where does my paper need more examples?
• How appropriate are my language choices?
• Have I maintained a consistent verb tense?
• Is there any section where my paper sounds repetitious or wordy?
• How can I make my introduction/conclusion more interesting?
• How can I clarify my thesis?
• Are my between paragraph transitions effective enough?

Ask Global Questions: (examples)

• How can I more clearly organize my examples?
• Can you easily identify the main idea of the paper?
• How well does the paper fulfill the needs of the writing assignment?
• Which sections of this paper need more development?
• Do all of my points clearly support my thesis?
• Where do you find information that doesn't directly support my thesis?

Keep it in perspective:
You're going to write papers that have both successful and unsuccessful elements. The point of peer evaluation is to establish working relationships between writers. Don't try to explain no-so-clear sections to your evaluator; you'll never be able to follow your writing around and explain it to readers. Don't get defensive; accepting criticism and responding appropriately will enable you to grow as a writer.

Remember that you are the writer:
Accept full responsibility for and ownership of your paper. This statement means two things. First, if you don't agree with a change suggested by your evaluator(s), you aren't obligated to make the change. It's your paper, and you should maintain your authority and voice. Second, don't rely on your evaluator(s) or instructor to tell you about every single weakness, mechanical error, etc. in a piece of writing. Evaluators and teachers are here to guide, suggest, encourage, and point out patterns. You, the writer, are solely responsible for whether or not your paper is on topic, clearly organized, consistently focused, and mechanically sound.

The Reader’s Responsibilities

Respond completely:
Never give the writer a "yes" or "no" statement. You should write a paragraph (4-6 sentences) response to each of the global questions and a 2-3 sentence response to each of the specific questions. Your responses should include suggestions for changes and not just acknowledgment of weaknesses.

Evaluate the paper:
Direct your comments to the paper, not to the writer. Every writer needs feedback, and every writer struggles to overcome weaknesses. Avoid statements like "you don't make sense."

Give positive feedback:
Evaluations shouldn't be error-based. If the writer asks you to take note of where the paper loses track of its thesis, you should also point out the sections that clearly adhere to the thesis. This approach enables you to both provide the writer with a successful model and let the writer know that parts of the paper are successful.

Don't edit:
Don't get caught up in spelling and mechanical errors so that you get sidetracked from the larger issues. If you notice an error pattern (ex: the writer consistently uses "to" instead of "too"), point it out and move on. You should focus your evaluation on the larger issues of focus, organization, clarity, readability, etc.

Ask thought-provoking questions:
Questioning the paper's content allows the writer to see which areas need clarified. Also, questions about content are usually more specific than comments like "this part isn't clear." In addition, your questions will let the writer know that you are closely and actively reading his/her writing (and the writer will trust you).

Be nice
Avoid using words that judge: good, bad, boring, etc. Choose words that direct the writer to specific elements of the paper: clarify, develop, add, cut, move, etc. Sharing our work is difficult for all writers. The best rule to follow is to think about the kind of response you're looking for and gauge your reaction accordingly.