BA6: To develop the ability to determine what revisions should be made to an early draft of a document.

Description: To complete this assignment, read the initial draft provided and then write an initial paragraph in which you discuss the problems that you see in the current draft. Next, read the revised draft and write another paragraph in which you discuss 1) whether the problems that you saw in the first draft were addressed, 2) whether the revisions fixed other issues that you hadn’t noticed in the draft, and 3) why the revisions are or are not an improvement over the first draft. If you believe other revisions should be made to the draft, conclude your assignment with an explanation of what those are and how the revisions should be made. Your discussion should be 500 - 650 words in length. You may use either of the following sets of drafts for your assignment NO, Diamond only, but we suggest the drafts on the Diamond essay, since you are more familiar with it.

The drafts are available here: https://raiderwriter.engl.ttu.edu/files/DraftsforBA6FA13.pdf

YOU MUST CRITIQUE THE DRAFTS OVER

DIAMOND

IF YOU CRITIQUE THE WRONG DRAFTS, YOUR ASSIGNMENT WILL BE DELETED, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO REDO THE ASSIGNMENT OVER THE CORRECT DRAFTS, AND THE LATE PENELTY WILL STAND.

What you need to do: This is the Grading Rubric.

1. Focus: You need to thoroughly explore the quality of the drafts and demonstrate an understanding of why both drafts are being examined.

2. Sources and Evidence: You need to support your critique with evidence from the texts = QUOTES In other words, directly refer to specific parts of the texts. Avoid being vague or using language that could apply to any draft.

3. Own Perspective: You need to have authority in relaying your perspective about the effectiveness of the revisions. Make a direct critique of the drafts, and do not default to praising or criticizing drafts in some generic way. TELL ME WHY IT WAS _____.

4. Conclusion: Provide an accurate evaluative statement about the overall effectiveness of the revisions.  Discuss the significance of the problems you identify in both drafts and suggest other ways in which the sample 1.2 draft could be improved. WHICH VERSION WAS BETTER?

5. Communication: Communicate your critique of the revisions effectively.  Have a professional tone.

Okay, so how the hell do we do this?!?!Print out the draftsDo a side by side comparison – Read intro #1,

then read into #2Write down What is Different

Introductory sentenceSpecificity of audienceRhetorical choices/Their order

Write down why (you think) the student made those changes

Based on the Checklist (from the blog) what are these drafts lacking/would you have done differently?

Use these answers as a Framework for BA6

Remember all the things we’ve gone over, and you’ve (hopefully) done so farClear, specific audienceA strong purposeRhetorical choices that match the aboveEvidence from the text that connects back to Aud. & Purp.

Take what you’ve learned, and the comments you’ve received on your work, and use that to Critique and Analyze these drafts

See Chapters 4H and 5F1 in the St. Martin’s Book for clarification on a good Intro, and Conclusion and chapter 4I for Body Paragraphs

What you should be looking for in a draft:1. Organization & Structure - Are there topic sentences,

transitions, do the choices appear in the essay in the order they appear in in the thesis?

2. Claims & Evidence - Is the claim consistent throughout, does the evidence given support the claims?

3. Analysis v. Summary - Is the essay focusing on analysis in a way that "shows" the reader the connections to audience and purpose, or is the essay just "telling" that there is a connection?

4. Word Choice - Does the essay have appropriate word choice, are the choices correctly named?

5. Logical Flow - Does the argument follow a logical path, is the essay disjointed, do the paragraphs work together or do they standalone? 

When are critiques not helpful?

What is bad or useless feedback?

“I liked it.”“I liked the paper, it was good.”“I didn’t like the thesis.”“I didn’t like the quotes.”

As a critiquer, you can't just say, "I liked it," or "I didn't like it." Instead, you want to focus on the article. Support your likes/dislikes with evidence from the text. First person isn’t wrong, but frame it so the focus is about the material.

Use BECAUSE STATEMENTS – I thought this was effective because the author does/doesn’t

- because the article says/doesn’t say

What you should be looking for in an introduction:

Is there a hook? (For more on introductions, see

5f1in the S.M. Handbook)Is the primary text presented clearly?Does the writer briefly discuss article’s

topic/ argument?Is it organized well?What is the original context of the

piece?Do you find yourself in want of more context information?

Is audience and purpose presented clearly?

Is the thesis complete?

St. Martin's Handbook: Chapter 4a, 4c-e, "Rereading Your Draft," "Getting the Most from Peer Reviewers' Comments," "Learning from Instructor Comments," "Revising with Peer and Instructor Comments"; First-Year Writing: Chapter 6 pp. 121-123

Participation – Bring in a first draft from one body paragraph of your rhetorical analysis (If you want to include your intro, that is fine as well, but IF NOT then include your THESIS above)

See student example on pg. 574 for help.

Next Week: