Objectives:

• By now both you and the students should be familiar with the RDW routine - base your tweaking of this session (including the peer review questions) based on the successes and failures of the previous two

Rough Draft Workshop III: Return of the Rough Draft Workshop

The Workshop

Back to the lab again. Surely you know the drill by now?

Answer the following questions in response to your peer's projects (as always, you should also provide any other recommendations or criticisms that occur to you).

1. Is the project clearly based on a definition? I.e., is it clear that the fundamental objective of the paper is based around a definition or series of definitions?

2. How strong are the criteria that the writer is using to compose their definition? Can you think of any items that also match the criteria used that the writer (as far as you can tell) would likely not want to be included the category being defined?

3. What is the strongest counterargument you can think of to refute the argument of this paper?

4. What do you take to be the strongest element of this project?

5. What do you find to be the weakest part (most in need of improvement) of the project?

6. On the sentence-level, did you find the paper to be well written? Does it contain poor grammmar or sentence-fragments? Is it unnecessarily wordy at times?

7. Does the author provide clear exigence for the project? I.e., do they make it clear why they think this is an important term/concept to be defined in the present moment?

8. What grade would you assign this project if this were the final draft?