First-Year Composition at USF: Site Pages

Home

System Account — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:12:23 GMT

Department of English, University of South Florida
4202 East Fowler Ave, CPR-107, Tampa, FL 33620-5550
Webmaster: Dan Richards, drichar3@mail.usf.edu

1102 CM

FOREST\drichar3 — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:39:04 GMT

Composition II (ENC 1102) Workshop Model (WM) introduces students to the field of rhetoric and provides students with an opportunity to analyze, research and compose arguments through a workshop model approach. This course emphasizes a variety of teaching modalities and learning spaces by negotiating not only the traditional classroom space, but also one-on-one, small group and online spaces/literacies. ENC 1102 focuses on the ways writers gain "agency" via argument, negotation, and reasoning. The workshop model course structure prepares students for real world experiences through their practice and response in variable learning environments. The course focuses on "agency" as a theme because effective writing is a form of power. To have an impact on their readers and positively influence the world, writers need to be able to cogently discuss complicated matters, advocate necessary changes, negotiate differences, and construct proposals for change. In academic contexts, writers gain agency by understanding the elements of effective argument and negotiation. Writers gain agency by understanding the needs and concerns of their audiences and by following the conventions for conducting inquiry and citing sources. Agency in this sense also indicates knowledge of available resources and the acquired ability to find, analyze, and integrate these resources into our communication tasks. In academic contexts, agency is not always political or personal--though it can be. For example, in the sciences or social sciences, writers can gain agency by writing a convincing argument about a chemical, biological, physical process. Writers can gain agency in the humanities by helping disputing parties negotiate conflicting interpretations of something. To help students gain agency as academic authors, the major projects in 1102 emphasize analyzing arguments from a rhetorical perspective (Project 1), developing arguments and negotiating differences (Project 2), and using writing to effect change (Project 3). Below is a summary of major course activities: Students write three major projects. Students will write a reflective response after each writing project that summarizes their writing process as well as the relative argument, persuasion, and rhetorical principles they have learned. Students participate in at least two peer review activities/writing project, which will provide them with the opportunity to provide constructive feedback in response to their fellow classmates’ writing. Students complete homework,discussion board posts, and class work that support their success with each of the three major projects. Students will conference weekly with their instructor (and peer groups) during the semester.
Projects and Documents	Resources and Context The division of time for such a model incorporates approximately one-hour/week of class time and one and one-half hours/week of individual and group conferences. Group conferences may also include instructional time. Such a workshop model offers more attention to peer review and increased opportunities for students to receive individual attention through one-on-one teacher-student conferences and teacher-student group conferences. As students take courses in various disciplines, they are introduced to multiple genres, from brief in-class written exams to research reports, lab reports, medical narratives, business reports, legal briefs, field notes, and more. As such, being an effective writer is tied to the ability to assess each communication situation for purpose and audience. Depending on the writing’s purpose and the intended audience, writers make appropriate choices as to whether they should employ the first-person or the third-person point of view and whether evidence should be based on experience or on textual research. They also make choices as it relates to document design and accepted documentation style. Student Testimonials “I liked that we met as an entire class once a week, but saw the small group meetings as more beneficial as we were able to ask more specific questions and get specific feedback from the professor…it allowed me to get to know my professor more as well as my peers, and gave us a chance to interact more than we could as an entire class.” ~Priyanka “I find it very beneficial being in this [workshop] model. By being not only a traditional classroom, but also one-on-one, and in small groups is a refreshing change and helps me understand projects more in depth.” ~Janelle	Assessment Students receive their teacher's feedback on their writing and grades via My Reviewers, a web-based, document markup, peer review, and assessment tool: http://myreviewers.usf.edu. Focus, organization, evidence, style, and format -- these are the criteria that are used to assess student work in ENC 1102 Workshop Model.

Peer Review for Students

FOREST\drichar3 — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:05:14 GMT

Peer Review

Rationale

Peer review has always been an important part of the writing process. Using language is inherently a social process. Many people find discussions with trusted colleagues to be an invaluable way to develop and polish ideas. Professionals in most disciplines, for example, attend conferences so that they can discuss ideas with colleagues and leading researchers. Writers in business and scientific contexts commonly work in teams with individuals responsible for their areas of expertise, such as marketing language, audience, finance, research, and editing. Some authors do not feel comfortable beginning a new project until they have discussed their ideas with others. Successful writers do not wait until they have completed a project before seeking constructive criticism. Instead, they share early drafts with critics.

As a peer reviewer, you can't just say, "I liked it," or "I didn't like it." Instead, you want to give the writer information that will really help to improve what the writer has written. What is important to remember is that while you should not be harsh or personal, you should be honest. Saying something works when it really does not will not help anyone.

Benefits

The ability to get feedback on your writing before the instructor sees it
The ability to see your own strengths and weaknesses after reading and responding to another paper
A greater sense of audience – it is not just your instructor reading your work
The chance to learn new information from your peers about the subject you may also be writing on
The opportunity for feedback, feedback, and more feedback!

Guidelines

Your instructor will grade your peer reviews of your classmates’ projects based on three criteria:

1) the quantity;

2) the quality; and

3) the tone of your comments.

  Quantity: Compose at least five in-text comments and one substantial endnote.   

Quality: Your comments should be specific, textually grounded, accurate, and detailed. You are expected to indicate particular passages in your classmates’ essays, state what is or is not working, and provide clear suggestions for improvement. Avoid simple statements of approval or disapproval, like “this doesn’t make any sense,” or “I liked/did not like this” unless accompanied by a “because” statement.  

Tone: As with all academic writing, you are expected to maintain a tone appropriate to your audience. Your comments should demonstrate respect, support, and empathy for the writer; use formal, academic diction; and avoid racist or sexist language.

  In-Text Comments: Your in-text comments should address local issues. That is, they should indicate particular passages (words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs) in the essay, and provide specific and thoughtful suggestions for improvement.   

A visual way to think about peer review comments:

Endnotes: Unlike in-text comments, a good endnote addresses global issues. In other words, it attempts to state the reviewer’s overall reaction to the piece, and focuses on how the essay functions as a whole. You should aim for a balanced endnote: compose 2 comments that talk about what the essay does well and 2 that discuss what the writer needs to improve. In both cases, state why these things work or do not work, and suggest ideas for improvement. Even positive comments can help the writer expand his or her ideas.   

Using the FYC Rubric: Use the first three criteria of the FYC rubric to generate ideas for comments. The most helpful comments will address issues of Focus, Organization, and Evidence. Especially between Early and Intermediate drafts, comments on style and format are not as helpful as those that address Focus, Organization, and Evidence. Style and Format comments will not count towards your peer review grade.  

Focus: Does the essay fulfill the assignment? Is the thesis statement clear, concise, interesting, and insightful? Does the essay stay focused on the thesis? Does each paragraph support the main idea?  

Organization: Does the essay have a compelling introduction? Do the topic sentences of each paragraph relate to the thesis? Do the paragraphs flow logically into one another? Does the conclusion answer the “so what?” question?  

Evidence: How credible are the writer’s sources? Does any of the evidence seem questionable? Are the sources relevant to the writer’s thesis? Does the writer distinguish between his or her ideas and those of the sources?

FYC Rubric Videos: Each rubric component is further explained in a series of videos (the My Reviewers Video Series) aimed at facilitating a deeper understanding of the criteria from a student point of view. Click on the individual criteria below to view corresponding video.

Focus | Organization | Evidence | Style | Format

Rubric

Your instructor will use this rubric to generate a grade for your peer review comments.

Also see the full rubric used by instructors to grade final projects: Rubric, Updated S12.pdf

Common Comments

To assist in the peer review process, the My Reviewers tool includes a feature called Common Comments (click here). This tool, based upon the research of thousands of student papers, allows reviewers to insert pre-set comments that are "common" to the process of reviewing essays. Rather than have to type out each individual comment, or repeat oneself over and over again for the same issue, reviewers can "insert" questions and comments directly into the reviewed document.

Each comment, once inserted, is indicated by a numerical code ("How much of this quote is vital to your point?" is indicated by a number [37]).

When the writer reads their reviewed document, they are then able to click on the numerical code and be brought to a page on WritingCommons.org, where the content is housed, and where the writer can then read on and consider the issue at hand.

Flowchart of Peer Review @ USF
(click image to enlarge)

ENC 1101 CM

FOREST\drichar3 — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:51:36 GMT

Composition I (ENC 1101) Workshop Model (WM) is designed specifically to introduce you to academic writing and its associated conventions, styles, and qualities. Throughout the course of the semester, you will develop information literacy skills through reading comprehension and research, refine your critical thinking processes through exploring historical perspectives and visual images, and critically reflect upon your own visual and textual compositions. ENC 1101 WM explores the foundations of knowledge and learning as outlined by USF’s General Education Plan. This course emphasizes a variety of teaching modalities and learning spaces by negotiating not only the traditional classroom space, but also one-on-one, small group and online spaces/literacies. Throughout the course of the semester, students will compose three major writing projects; receive and give feedback to their peers through My Reviewers; and conference weekly with their instructor and peer groups during the semester. Through each of these three projects, students will develop writing skills appropriate for a university setting and will be encouraged to think critically about the complex relationships between evidence and belief, artifacts and history, self and society.
Projects and Documents	Resources and Context The division of time for such a model incorporates approximately one-hour/week of class time and one and one-half hours/week of individual and group conferences. Group conferences may also include instructional time. Such a workshop model offers more attention to peer review and increased opportunities for students to receive individual attention through one-on-one teacher-student conferences and teacher-student group conferences. As students take courses in various disciplines, they are introduced to multiple genres, from brief in-class written exams to research reports, lab reports, medical narratives, business reports, legal briefs, field notes, and more. As such, being an effective writer is tied to the ability to assess each communication situation for purpose and audience. Depending on the writing’s purpose and the intended audience, writers make appropriate choices as to whether they should employ the first-person or the third-person point of view and whether evidence should be based on experience or on textual research. They also make choices as it relates to document design and accepted documentation style. ENC 1101 WM provides a thorough introduction to the common elements of effective writing. By the end of the semester, you will have learned to think rhetorically, to understand and employ a variety of writing strategies, to conduct research, and to interpret, critique, summarize, and paraphrase texts. Student Testimonials “I liked that we met as an entire class once a week, but saw the small group meetings as more beneficial as we were able to ask more specific questions and get specific feedback from the professor…it allowed me to get to know my professor more as well as my peers, and gave us a chance to interact more than we could as an entire class.” ~Priyanka “I find it very beneficial being in this [workshop] model. By being not only a traditional classroom, but also one-on-one, and in small groups is a refreshing change and helps me understand projects more in depth.” ~Janelle	Assessment Students receive their teacher's feedback on their writing and grades via My Reviewers, a web-based, document markup, peer review, and assessment tool: http://myreviewers.usf.edu. Focus, organization, evidence, style, and format -- these are the criteria that are used to assess student work in ENC 1101 Workshop Model.

First-Year Composition at USF: Site Pages

Archive

Archived Materials

Home

1102 CM

Peer Review for Students

ENC 1101 CM

Archived Materials News stories, alumni instructor records, and Bullitzer Prize winners from years past.

First-Year Composition at USF: Site Pages

Archive

​Archived Materials

Home

1102 CM

Peer Review for Students

ENC 1101 CM

Archived Materials