Peer Review: Essay 3
As you review one another’s drafts (and as you revise your own paper), you should look out for three common writing errors:
- Unsubstantiated Claims
- Incomplete or insubstantial Analysis
- Lack of Connection to the Argument or Interpretive Problem
The Practice Section and Peer Review Guide below will help you learn to identify these three errors and to find them in both yours and your partner’s paper.
Practice
The examples below are from three different types of papers, see if you can identify what is missing/needed in the following paragraphs.
Example A: Sample Portfolio Paper
In the essays I wrote for this class, I learned how to integrate evidence smoothly into my writing. Essay 1 in particular challenged this skill since it was a close reading essay. I struggled with the skill at first. When I first started writing, I would put the evidence from the author into a separate sentence from my own thoughts. I wouldn’t connect them and wouldn’t take time to close read. However, I have revised this essay and, clearly, I have improved this step. Here is a sample from the final version of my essay:
We are going to talk in detail about this motif’s significance, commencing by analyzing how crossing “La Frontera” serves as a pivotal step towards achieving the characters’ American dream. ” Once we cross La Frontera, we’ll make a good living in California” (Jimenez, 35). Later, when they are crossing it the dehumanizing feeling that gushes through symbolizes the allusions in the narrative about the resilient lifestyles of Chicanos within the labor force, shedding light on the multifaceted negotiations of identity in this context. Moreover, the imagery used in the portrayal of the train driver, initially as a “with his gray-white striped cap,” (Jimenez, 39) giving an illusion of the train driver being a referee and subsequently as a compassionate provider, invites us to question whether this transformation represents an unspoken endorsement of migration…
I think integrating the evidence into my own words helps me get a deeper and more nuanced analysis.
Example B: Sample Essay 3
Edwidge Danticat uses narrative techniques to further explore the complexities of identity, particularly in relation to the individual’s relationship with their culture. Through an analysis of two metaphors in the text—the sea and the banyan tree—Danticat illustrates the ways in which individuals must navigate the complexities of their cultural context in order to create an identity that is meaningful to them. The sea is constantly in flux, ever-changing and unpredictable. It is an apt metaphor for the complexities of identity, and the ways in which individuals must constantly negotiate their cultural context in order to create an identity that is meaningful to them. Similarly, the banyan tree is a boundless entity. It is a metaphor for the ways that identity is continually reconstructed, with no central root.
Example C: Sample Essay 3
The cultural divide between their village life and the unfamiliarity of California represents the complexities of existing in a hyphenated reality. Roberto, Francisco’s brother, is excited about the prospect of modern comforts and a life in California, illustrating the allure of a new cultural context and the desire for upward mobility. In contrast, Francisco cherishes his village life, finding joy in simple pleasures and cultural traditions, which showcases the struggle of preserving one’s cultural identity in a new environment. The physical act of crossing the border into California is a defining moment in the family’s journey. The presence of guards and the barbed wire fence symbolize the challenges and barriers immigrants face in their pursuit of a hyphenated reality. The family’s nighttime journey, crawling through a small hole in the fence, reflects their determination to transcend borders and seek a better future. This journey represents the sacrifices and struggles inherent in the pursuit of a hyphenated reality.
Extra Credit: Sample…
On one hand, Frost’s depiction of the saw as a “buzz-saw” that “snarled and rattled” suggests a sense of foreboding, almost as if the machine itself has a malicious intent. This anthropomorphization of the saw hints at a darker interpretation, where nature, in the form of machinery, actively seeks to harm humans. The suddenness and violence of the accident further reinforce this interpretation, as if the forces of nature conspire against the boy.
**BONUS: I’ll give you extra points towards whatever part of your grade needs it if you can guess where I got this paragraph from**
Peer REview Guide
In your partner’s paper, you are looking for three components:
- Lack of Connection to the Argument
- Do they have:
- An Interpretive Problem and a Major Interpretive Debate? If so, highlight what you think is the interpretive problem or major interpretive debate. If not, take a look at their introduction and make a comment where you think their interpretive problem and major interpretive debate should go.
- A Debatable Claim that resolves the interpretive problem? If so, highlight that claim in their document. If not, highlight what you think is the claim and comment what they could improve on.
- Are they:
- Making connections in each paragraph back to the major interpretive debate or their overarching argument/claim?
- Integrating the interpretations of other scholars and discussing how their own analysis agrees, disagrees, or complicates these interpretations?
- Do they have:
- Unsubstantiated Claims
- Highlight the following and comment on what they could do to support this claim:
- Are there moments in the text where they state opinions or interpretations about the text without supporting that interpretation with evidence or analysis?
- Are there moments where they reference ideas from other scholars without citing the information?
- Are there moments where they have a series of big claims in a row without pausing to break it down?
- Highlight the following and comment on what they could do to support this claim:
- Incomplete or insubstantial Analysis
- Highlight the following and comment on what they could do to expand their analysis:
- Moments where they’ve developed an interpretation of the text without citing evidence
- Moments where they’ve cited evidence and follow with “This means…” or “clearly..”
- Moments where they don’t pause to analyze the text, where they don’t perform either what/how/why or noticing/reacting/interacting steps.
- Highlight the following and comment on what they could do to expand their analysis: