Brachprqgreth
Brachprqgreth
Brachprqgreth
Homepage:
1. Read and review the homepage. Based on the visuals and text, what do you expect the topic,
tone, voice, stance, etc. of this Readers Guide to take. Is there a clear title to the Readers
Guide? Does the title need work or already bring the reader in? Is the focus of the collection
clear from the homepage? N/A
2. Are there any multimodal components of the Homepage? If not, what do you think the author
could add? What ideas can you help them brainstorm for images, videos, etc. for their
homepage? Add a hompage.
Introduction:
1. How does the author begin? Does the beginning of the editors overview draw you in? Does
he/she appeal to their audience to get them to buy in or understand what is at stake for
them? What could the author do to better answer the So What question? N/A, Add an
introduction
2. Does the author introduce who they are, their purpose with the readers guide, and explain the
focus their readers guide? no
3. Does the author provide an overview of the larger points of the conversation which references
the major voices directly (this is not an essay -- sources should talk to each other. For each
paragraph, write a sentence or two of summary explaining what the author says and how they
are saying it. No, N/A
4. Does the introduction stay focused on a main purpose that that frames the discussion for the
audience (this is not a generic overview) N/A
5. Does the introduction make connections among the sources and their rhetorical situations in
the collection? Where are they especially strong making these connections? Is it clear from
the introduction that the author has considered the exigence, rhetor, audience, and
constraints for each of his/her sources? Does the introduction do more than just describe what
one source says and then what the next source says and so on? Can you tell from the
introduction the complexities of the Parlor conversation by sharing how multiple sources
address/discuss the same aspects of the conversation? Are the tensions, conflicts,
inconsistencies, and areas of debate clear from the editors introduction? What are the
primary complexities that your peer focuses his/her collection on? NO
6. Does the author get off track? If so, where? N/A
7. If the author cites any resource work in the introduction, is it properly cited and documented?
What style are they using? Is it consistent and applied throughout the introduction? N/A
8. Does the organization of the introduction make sense? How has the author structured the
introduction? If the structure seems either confusing or strong indicate where you see this.
How would you improve it? N/A
9. Does the author consider the audience? Indicate how the author could address the audience
better or where the author does a good job of considering the audience. N/A
10.If the author has used any multimodal components are they helpful to their Readers Guide
purpose? What tone or attitude do the visuals or videos help to establish? Do they add to or
detract from the work? Say why.N/A
11.Does the author maintain a clear academic voice and tone (while remaining engaged with the
reader and maintaining his/her own voice)? What balance between academic and personal is
the author able to find? N/A
Annotated Table of Contents:
1. Does each entry have bibliographic information for each source so that readers know what
type and where each source comes from? Yes.
2. Is it clear that the sources are intentionally arranged (by depth or complexity, by category, by
published date, etc.)? How can you tell? Did they tell you in the introduction or reflection? Is
it clear on the Annotated TOC itself? Are there links to the yes, because he has a very
organized page.
3. Does each entry have a well-written editors summary of each source and a editors
commentary following the summary? yes
4. If the author has used any multimodal components in the TOC are they helpful to their
Readers Guide purpose? What tone or attitude do the visuals or videos help to establish? Do
they add to or detract from the work? Say why. Make any suggestions you have for improving
the use of multimodal elements on this page. He doesnt.
Research Maps and Blogs:
1.
Since you have already reviewed this page, just make sure that the author has addressed any
concerns that you indicated earlier. Rate 10/10 would read again
2. Does the author clearly demonstrate their inquiry process through their Research Map and
Blogs? yes
3. Does the author use the maps and blogs to show sophisticated, consistent use of research and
writing to generate questions and seek answers through varied sources as a means of
discovery and deeper understanding of the topic? yes
4. Is the design of this page appropriate for the authors audience? Does it help the reader follow
their line of inquiry? Yes x 2
Reflection:
1.
Does the project reflection provide sophisticated detail and depth? Which pieces of detail do
you find most successful/helpful? The description of his exigence
2. Does the reflection offer a thorough depiction of the role of inquiry in the authors project
development? yes
3. Explain in a few sentences what the authors determined rhetorical situation was and how they
took it into consideration in writing their Readers Guide.
4. Does the reflection describe what revisions the author made after the peer responses and
conferencing? What impact does the author feel those revisions make on the finished
product? What process helped them make their revision choices? No, not much was changed.
Overall project:
1. List two things you think the author does a good job on. List two things you think the author
should work on. Make at least one suggestion for how she/he might go about improving each
of those aspects of the Readers Guide. The maps were very good, and the table of contents
was 10/10. You may want to add a homepage and introduction.
2. List two things you would like to hear more about. What does the author not deal with as
much or as well as youd like? Explain what and why you think these elements are important
enough to include. Numerical data would be great. And what are the subjects applications for
athletes.
Indicate where you think your peer will fall on the Rubric below based on where they are at now.
Grading Rubric
RG = Readers Guide
1 = Below Expectations
2 = Satisfactory
3 = Proficient
4 = Exemplary
Content: RG lacks a
focus and/or few to no
connections are made for
the reader.
Content: RG components
work together to establish a
focus determined by the
writer through synthesis of
research. Multiple
connections are made for the
reader.
Conventions: RG has
obvious errors that distract
the reader.
Reflection: Project
reflection lacks detail and
has significant gaps,
failing to provide an
adequate picture of project
movement.
GRADING SCALE:
16 = 100
9 = 80
14-15 = 95
8 = 75
12-13 = 90
7 = 70
10-11 = 85
6 = 65
5 or lower = 60