ENC 1101: Peer Review as Practice

## Peer Review as Practice **Course**: ENC 1101 **Instructor**: Glenn S. Ritchey III You just completed peer review on your MA1 draft. Today we're using Kelly's reading to figure out what that actually was — and what to do with the feedback you gave and received. ### What you'll do 1. Work through two focused discussions with your group 2. Share your findings with the class **Which schedule are you on?** [[Monday/Wednesday section →->MW-Groups]] [[Wednesday/Friday section →->WF-Groups]] *Need help navigating?* [[How to use this Twine->Instructions-Node]]

## How to Use This Twine ### Navigation Click blue links to move between pages, including to return to previous pages. ### Working in Groups Find your group number, follow your pathway (Discussion 1 → Discussion 2 → Shareout Prep), and take notes however works best for you — phone, paper, laptop. ### Discussions Read the context carefully before jumping to the questions. The context is the lecture — it's where the key concepts live. Times are guidelines; quality matters more than finishing. ### Reference Nodes These provide extra context on key concepts. Use them when you want a refresher or need to go deeper before answering a question. [[← Back to start->Start]]

## Group Assignments [[Group 1: What Peer Review Really Is →->Group1-Opening]] [[Group 2: Reviewer Two →->Group2-Opening]] [[Group 3: How to Be a Good Peer Reviewer →->Group3-Opening]] [[Group 4: Responding to Difficult Feedback →->Group4-Opening]] [[Group 5: From Feedback to Revision Plan →->Group5-Opening]]

## Peer Review: The Big Picture Kelly argues that the peer review you do in a writing class is an apprentice version of the same process used by professional academic writers to publish research. It's not just a classroom exercise — it's how knowledge gets tested, improved, and shared in every academic field. That framing changes what's at stake when you give or receive feedback on a classmate's draft. **Key Concept**: **Peer review** — a process by which writers share work in progress with readers who evaluate and offer feedback, with the goal of making the work more accurate, ethical, and effective. **Today's Question**: What makes feedback actually useful — to the person giving it *and* the person receiving it? *Your group explores this from a specific angle. The deeper content lives in your group's pathway.* [[← Back to MW Groups->MW-Groups]] [[← Back to WF Groups->WF-Groups]]

## Group 1: What Peer Review Really Is Your group explores what Kelly calls the **professional context** of peer review — why it exists, how it works in academic publishing, and why that context matters for understanding what you're doing when you review a classmate's draft. *Why this matters*: Most students think peer review is just a classroom assignment. Kelly argues it's an apprentice version of the same process that validates the research in your textbooks. Understanding that changes what you're actually doing when you read someone else's work. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: What is professional peer review and why does it exist? 2. **Discussion 2**: How does understanding this context change how you approach the peer review you just did? 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize your findings to share with the class. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group1-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Reference: The Academic Peer Review Process->Group1-Reference]]

## Group 1 — Discussion 1: The Professional Context **Goal**: Understand why professional peer review exists and how Kelly connects it to what students do in writing classes. ### Context Kelly describes professional academic peer review as a quality-control system for research. When a professor writes a journal article, they submit it to a journal. Editors send it to two or three independent experts in the field — the author's "peers" — who read it and write reports evaluating whether the key idea is original, well-supported, and worth publishing. The editors use those reports to decide whether to accept, reject, or ask for revisions. Kelly's point isn't that student peer review is the same thing. It's that they share the same underlying purpose: connecting a writer's work to a community committed to making it better. When you read your classmate's draft, you stand in for the larger audience they're trying to reach. You're not just doing a class activity — you're practicing something that matters beyond the classroom. Kelly also notes that peer review isn't perfect. Reviewers are people. They can be short-sighted, mistaken, or even hostile. The system has real flaws. But at its best, it helps ensure that what gets published is as good as it can be. ### Questions Work through these individually first — jot down your initial responses, then discuss with your group. **1. Kelly argues that peer review serves two purposes: improving individual pieces of writing AND validating the quality of research more broadly. In your own words, what's the difference between those two purposes? Why does the second one matter?** *Think about what it means that the research in your textbooks has been peer reviewed. What does that tell you about why the process exists?* **2. Kelly describes the stages of professional peer review: submission, desk rejection or review, revise-and-resubmit, acceptance. What surprised you most about this process? What about it maps onto what you did last week with your classmate's draft?** *The "revise-and-resubmit" outcome — where editors ask for changes before accepting — is actually the most common result. What does that tell you about revision?* **3. Kelly says student peer review is an "apprentice version" of professional peer review. What does "apprentice" imply? What does it suggest about how seriously you should take the feedback you gave and received?** *Consider: an apprentice electrician works with real wires. It's practice, but the stakes are real. What are the real stakes in your peer review?* [[Reference: The Academic Peer Review Process->Group1-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group1-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group1-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 1 — Discussion 2: Applying the Context **Goal**: Connect Kelly's professional context to your own peer review experience and MA1 revision. ### From Understanding to Application Understanding that peer review is a community practice — not just a task to complete — should change how you think about the feedback you gave and received. You weren't just filling out a form. You were acting as a stand-in for the audience your classmate is trying to reach. ### Questions **1. Think about the feedback you gave your peer reviewer partner. Were you acting more like a collaborator trying to help them reach their audience, or more like a judge evaluating whether the draft was good? What's the difference in practice?** *Kelly says the best reviewers see themselves as "collaborators in a larger project, one of many voices in an ongoing conversation." What would it look like to review with that mindset?* **2. Kelly notes that even professional peer reviewers sometimes give contradictory feedback — one reviewer says cut examples, another says add more. You may have received feedback that felt conflicting. How does knowing that even published academics face this help you decide what to do with your MA1 feedback?** *The author always makes the final call. What does that mean for how you read your peer review comments?* **3. Kelly argues that peer review "develops a piece of writing by connecting its ideas and expressions to a community." Your MA1 is about your own literacy experience. In what sense does getting feedback on that kind of personal writing connect you to a community?** *What community, specifically? Who is the audience you're trying to reach with your Multimodal Literacy Narrative?* ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: Write two or three sentences that describe what you were actually trying to accomplish in your MA1 draft. What were you trying to communicate, and to whom? - **Option B**: Identify one piece of feedback you received that felt like it came from a reader who understood what you were trying to do — and one that felt like it missed your point. What's the difference? - **Option C**: If you were going to reframe how you approach peer review going forward — based on Kelly's argument — what would you do differently as a reviewer? [[Reference: The Academic Peer Review Process->Group1-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group1-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group1-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 1 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): What's the most important thing you learned about peer review as a professional and community practice? **2. Specific Example** (1 min): ONE moment from your discussion — a question that surprised your group, a connection you made, a disagreement you had. **3. Application** (30 sec): One thing the class can take away for approaching their MA1 revision. ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - What's your specific example? - What's your takeaway for the class? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Specifics over generalities.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group1-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: The Academic Peer Review Process **What it is**: A system in which writers share work with independent expert readers — their "peers" — who evaluate the work and provide written feedback before it is published or finalized. **Why it matters for your writing**: Understanding peer review as a quality-control process (not just a classroom exercise) helps you take both giving and receiving feedback more seriously. The feedback you give a classmate is practice for the kind of critical engagement that improves writing at every level. ### Key Points - Professional peer review involves an editor, at least two reviewers, and a decision: accept, reject, or revise-and-resubmit - Revise-and-resubmit is the most common outcome — meaning revision is the norm, not a sign that something is wrong - Reviewers are experts in the subject matter, not random readers — in a writing class, your peers stand in for the audience the writer is trying to reach - Even peer-reviewed publications aren't perfect — reviewers are human and can be wrong ### Example Kelly herself serves as an editor for *Early Theatre*, a peer-reviewed academic journal. The five questions she recommends for student peer reviewers are a condensed version of the actual instructions her journal sends to its reviewers. Same process, different scale. ### How to Apply This When you read a classmate's draft, ask: *Am I reading this as a collaborator trying to help them reach their audience — or as a judge evaluating whether the draft is good?* Those are different stances, and they produce different kinds of feedback. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]]

## Group 2: Reviewer Two Your group explores what Kelly calls the **"Reviewer Two" problem** — what bad feedback looks like, why it happens, and what it does to writers who receive it. *Why this matters*: Most of you have gotten feedback on your writing that felt unfair, confusing, or just mean. Kelly names this experience and takes it seriously. Understanding why bad feedback happens is the first step to not letting it derail you — and to not doing it to someone else. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: What is Reviewer Two and why does it happen? 2. **Discussion 2**: How do you protect your writing — and yourself — from Reviewer Two? 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize your findings to share with the class. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group2-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Reference: The Reviewer Two Problem->Group2-Reference]]

## Group 2 — Discussion 1: What Reviewer Two Looks Like **Goal**: Understand what characterizes Reviewer Two feedback and why even experienced writers struggle with it. ### Context "Reviewer Two" is the nickname academic writers give to the reviewer whose feedback is harsh, unfair, or destructive. The name comes from how feedback reports are labeled — when editors send peer review reports to an author, they're often numbered. Editors tend to put the more positive or reasonable review first, so the mean one tends to be Reviewer Two. Kelly describes several forms Reviewer Two can take: a reviewer who dismisses the work without engaging with its argument, one who demands impossible revisions, or one who attacks the author personally ("I don't think this author can write"). The anonymity of peer review — reviewers don't have to identify themselves — can make this worse, similar to how anonymous online comments tend to be crueler than face-to-face feedback. What's striking in Kelly's account is that even highly published scholars with international reputations feel "shaky" after getting a Reviewer Two comment. Many people who responded to Kelly's Twitter request for examples chose to message her privately because the experience was too painful to discuss publicly. Kelly's point is that Reviewer Two can actually silence writers — discouraging them from continuing to share work, or giving them the sense that they have nothing worth saying. ### Questions Work through these individually first, then discuss with your group. **1. Kelly distinguishes between a few types of Reviewer Two: the dismissive reviewer, the impossible-demands reviewer, and the personally cruel reviewer. Can you think of an example of each from your own experience — with writing or with any kind of feedback you've received? What made each type damaging in a different way?** *You don't have to use a writing example. Any feedback experience works — a coach, a teacher, a boss, a family member.* **2. Kelly says anonymity can make feedback worse — people say things they wouldn't say to someone's face. But anonymity can also make feedback more honest. When is anonymity helpful in a feedback situation, and when does it become a problem?** *Think about the peer review you just did. Was the relative anonymity of the situation (you know each other, but you're not close) a factor in how honest or guarded you were?* **3. Kelly argues that Reviewer Two-style comments "can wind up silencing the voices of individuals whose ideas have the power to change minds." That's a strong claim. Do you believe it? What would it mean if it's true — especially for writers whose voices are already less represented in academic writing?** *This connects to our course theme. Whose voices get silenced by harsh feedback, and whose don't?* [[Reference: The Reviewer Two Problem->Group2-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group2-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group2-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 2 — Discussion 2: Not Becoming Reviewer Two **Goal**: Understand how to protect yourself from Reviewer Two feedback — and how to make sure you don't become one. ### From Understanding to Application There are two sides to the Reviewer Two problem. Receiving harsh or unfair feedback is one. The other is accidentally giving it. Kelly argues that Reviewer Two feedback usually comes from reviewers who aren't thoughtful — who skim the draft, focus only on problems, and forget that the person who wrote it is a human being trying to communicate something. ### Questions **1. Kelly gives specific advice to prevent yourself from becoming Reviewer Two: start with praise before criticism, see yourself as a collaborator not a judge, and offer specific suggestions alongside any criticism. Looking back at the peer review feedback you gave your partner, how well did you do on each of these? Where did you fall short?** *Be honest. This isn't about beating yourself up — it's about getting better at something you'll do again.* **2. Kelly says: "When you serve as a peer reviewer, do unto other writers as you would have them do unto you." That's a simple principle. But what if you'd actually want harsh, direct feedback on your own writing? Does the Golden Rule apply here, or is there a better standard?** *What does your partner actually need from you — which might be different from what you'd want for yourself?* **3. You received peer review comments on your MA1 draft. Without sharing anything private, think about whether any of those comments felt like Reviewer Two — not necessarily mean, but perhaps confusing, dismissive, or focused on the wrong things. How did that feedback affect your motivation to revise?** *Kelly's point is that bad feedback can make writers want to quit. Did any of your feedback have that effect, even slightly?* ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: Rewrite one piece of feedback you gave your partner so that it's more in line with Kelly's advice — lead with what's working, be specific, position yourself as a collaborator. - **Option B**: Write a brief "Reviewer Two analysis" of one comment you received: What type of Reviewer Two is it (dismissive, impossible demands, personally cruel)? Is there anything useful buried in it anyway? - **Option C**: Write two or three sentences describing the kind of feedback that would actually help you revise your MA1 right now. What do you need to hear? [[Reference: The Reviewer Two Problem->Group2-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group2-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group2-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 2 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): What's the most important thing your group identified about what makes feedback damaging — and what protects writers from it? **2. Specific Example** (1 min): ONE concrete moment from your discussion — a type of Reviewer Two you identified, a connection to your own experience, a disagreement. **3. Application** (30 sec): One practical thing the class can do — either as a reviewer or as a writer — to avoid the Reviewer Two dynamic. ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - What's your specific example? - What's your takeaway for the class? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Specifics over generalities.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group2-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: The Reviewer Two Problem **What it is**: "Reviewer Two" is the nickname for a peer reviewer whose feedback is harsh, unfair, dismissive, or personally cruel — named for the tendency of editors to put the more reasonable review first, leaving the difficult one as number two. **Why it matters for your writing**: Knowing what Reviewer Two looks like helps you recognize it when it happens to you — so you can process it without letting it derail your revision. It also helps you avoid becoming one. ### Key Points - Reviewer Two takes several forms: dismissing the work without engaging its argument, demanding impossible revisions, or attacking the author personally - Anonymity can make feedback harsher — the same dynamic you see in anonymous online comments - Even highly published scholars are damaged by Reviewer Two comments; students starting out are even more vulnerable - Reviewer Two feedback can silence writers — which is a real loss, especially for voices already underrepresented in academic writing ### Example Kelly received an actual peer review comment that said: "I don't understand why anyone would want to write about this boring play." Her initial response was anger and the impulse to give up. Her planned response: add sentences to the introduction establishing why the play matters — something she could control. ### How to Apply This When you receive feedback that feels unfair or hurtful: (1) name the feeling without acting on it immediately, (2) look for what the comment might be responding to even if it's expressed badly, (3) decide what — if anything — you can actually use. You don't have to take bad feedback at face value. You do have to decide what to do with it. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]]

## Group 3: How to Be a Good Peer Reviewer Your group explores Kelly's **framework for giving useful feedback** — the five questions she recommends reviewers work through before writing a single comment on a draft. *Why this matters*: Most students approach peer review by scanning for problems and writing marginal comments. Kelly's five questions ask you to do something different: engage with the work holistically before you start marking it up. That changes what feedback you give and how useful it is. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: What are the five questions and what is each one actually asking? 2. **Discussion 2**: How would applying these questions have changed the peer review you did last week? 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize your findings to share with the class. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group3-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Reference: Kelly's Five Questions->Group3-Reference]]

## Group 3 — Discussion 1: The Five Questions **Goal**: Understand what each of Kelly's five questions is asking and why they're structured the way they are. ### Context Kelly recommends that after reading a classmate's draft once, you write answers to five questions *before* writing anything on the draft itself. The questions are: 1. **Originality**: What is the key point, central thesis, or purpose? Does it seem like a promising project? 2. **Argumentation (development)**: How does the author develop the argument? Is there enough evidence? Are there points that need more support? 3. **Argumentation (arrangement)**: As you read from beginning to end, did the order seem sensible? Are there places where you felt lost or confused? 4. **Readability**: Does the style suit the intended audience? At the sentence level, is it easy to understand? Are there small errors that take attention away from the ideas? 5. **Overall**: Are there specific strengths or problems you want to highlight? What exactly might the author try to make the piece more effective? Kelly notes that these questions are a condensed version of the actual instructions her academic journal sends to its peer reviewers — meaning this framework is what professional academics use, not something invented for beginners. She also notes that these questions are designed to keep you at a "high level" of engagement: focused on whether the writing is working, not bogged down in line edits and typos. ### Questions Work through these individually first, then discuss with your group. **1. Kelly distinguishes between "argumentation (development)" and "argumentation (arrangement)" — two separate questions about the same element. Why does she split them? What's the difference between an argument that's underdeveloped and one that's disorganized?** *Think of a time you read something that had a good idea but was hard to follow — or something that was well-organized but didn't convince you. What made each one fall short?* **2. The Readability question explicitly says: "This item is not an invitation to proofread or copy-edit." Why does Kelly include that disclaimer? What happens when a peer reviewer focuses mainly on grammar and sentence-level errors instead of the larger argument?** *This connects to something Sommers argues too (in the Grauman reading coming Wednesday): student writers default to local revision. What does that pattern look like in peer review?* **3. Kelly says you should write answers to these questions in a separate document before writing anything on the draft itself. Why does that sequence matter? What do you usually do when you peer review — and how does that differ?** *What's the risk of writing comments as you read, before you have a sense of the whole piece?* [[Reference: Kelly's Five Questions->Group3-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group3-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group3-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 3 — Discussion 2: Applying the Framework **Goal**: Assess the peer review you gave last week against Kelly's five questions — and figure out what you'd do differently. ### From Understanding to Application Kelly's five questions aren't just a rubric. They're a discipline: they ask you to read holistically before responding locally, to engage with what the author was *trying* to do before judging whether they succeeded. ### Questions **1. Think about the peer review feedback you gave your partner. Go through Kelly's five areas (Originality, Argumentation/development, Argumentation/arrangement, Readability, Overall). Which areas did you actually address? Which did you skip or shortchange?** *Be specific. Did you say anything about whether the thesis was clear? About whether the organization was working? Or did most of your comments end up on sentence-level issues?* **2. Kelly says that if you can't figure out the key point, thesis, or purpose of a draft, you should "let the author know what you think it is and why you are unsure." Did you do that in your peer review — or did you assume you understood what the author was going for? What's the risk of that assumption?** *The author always knows more about their intentions than the reviewer does. When does a reviewer's misunderstanding become useful information for the author?* **3. Think about the feedback you received on your MA1. Using Kelly's five questions as a lens: which areas did your reviewer address? Which areas would you most want feedback on right now — before your final draft is due Friday?** *This isn't about criticizing your reviewer. It's about identifying what you still need in order to revise effectively.* ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: Pick one of Kelly's five questions and write a 2-3 sentence response to it about your own MA1 draft. What does the answer tell you about what you need to revise? - **Option B**: Write the feedback you wish you'd received on your draft — using Kelly's framework as a guide. What would a truly useful Originality comment look like for your specific piece? - **Option C**: If you could go back and redo the peer review you gave your partner, what would you do differently? Write a brief revised feedback note using at least two of Kelly's five areas. [[Reference: Kelly's Five Questions->Group3-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group3-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group3-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 3 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): What's the most important thing your group identified about Kelly's five questions — either what makes them useful or what's hard about them? **2. Specific Example** (1 min): ONE concrete moment — a question that shifted how your group thought about peer review, a gap you identified in your own feedback, a realization. **3. Application** (30 sec): One specific thing the class can do differently when they give peer review next time. ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - What's your specific example? - What's your takeaway for the class? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Specifics over generalities.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group3-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: Kelly's Five Questions **What it is**: A framework for giving holistic peer review feedback, structured around five areas of evaluation. Adapted from the actual reviewer instructions used by the academic journal *Early Theatre*. **Why it matters for your writing**: Most writers receive feedback that focuses on surface-level issues (grammar, word choice) rather than the bigger questions (Is the thesis clear? Does the organization work?). Kelly's framework corrects that imbalance by asking reviewers to address the whole piece before getting into details. ### Key Points - **Originality**: Is the key point clear and promising? - **Argumentation (development)**: Is there enough evidence and support? - **Argumentation (arrangement)**: Is the organization logical and easy to follow? - **Readability**: Does the style suit the purpose and audience? - **Overall**: What specific strengths or problems need attention? ### Example Kelly says: if you find it challenging to identify and describe the strongest aspect of an essay and explain why it's working, that means you're doing a good job. It takes effort to produce helpful peer reviews. The more you practice, the better you get. ### How to Apply This After reading a draft once, write your answers to all five questions in a separate document *before* writing anything on the draft. This keeps you at a high level — focused on whether the writing is working — and prevents you from getting bogged down in minor details before you understand the whole piece. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]]

## Group 4: Responding to Difficult Feedback Your group explores Kelly's **two-step process** for responding to Reviewer Two-style comments: freewriting an unfiltered initial response, then separately planning a revision. *Why this matters*: You have peer review feedback on your MA1 right now, and some of it probably felt off — confusing, unfair, or frustrating. Kelly argues that the way you respond to that kind of feedback is a skill, and it can be practiced. The two-step process is the key tool. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: What is the two-step process and why does it work? 2. **Discussion 2**: Apply it to a real Reviewer Two comment. 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize your findings to share with the class. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group4-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Reference: The Two-Step Response Process->Group4-Reference]]

## Group 4 — Discussion 1: The Two Steps **Goal**: Understand Kelly's two-step process for responding to difficult feedback and why separating the emotional response from the revision plan matters. ### Context Kelly argues that when you get feedback that knocks you back — harsh, unfair, confusing, or just wrong — you need two things: permission to have your emotional response, and a plan that doesn't let that response make your decisions for you. Her recommendation: first, *freewrite an unfiltered initial response*. Don't edit yourself. Write down what you actually feel — the anger, the frustration, the impulse to give up. Get it out of your head and onto the page. Then, separately and later, ask: *What can I actually use here?* Kelly demonstrates this with a real example from her own career. A reviewer wrote: "I don't understand why anyone would want to write about this boring play." Her **initial response**: "I hate this reviewer. This is so unfair. Aren't literary scholars supposed to be interested in a wide range of texts? How do I get someone to care about something they think is boring? Maybe I should give up on this topic?" Her **planned response**: "Whether or not this play is 'boring' is beside the point — I can make more explicit in my argument that this play hasn't received enough attention from scholars, especially since it connects to a subject that has been discussed a lot lately. Adding a few sentences to my introduction will more clearly establish the larger implications of this topic and why it's worth reading my argument." Notice: the planned response doesn't ignore the comment. It extracts what's actually useful from something that felt useless — the reviewer's lack of engagement is information about what the introduction isn't doing yet. ### Questions Work through these individually first, then discuss with your group. **1. Why does Kelly recommend writing the initial response before the planned response — rather than just skipping straight to "what can I use here?" What happens if you try to plan a revision while you're still in the emotional response phase?** *Think about a time you tried to respond to criticism before you'd processed your feelings about it. What happened?* **2. Kelly's planned response turns a hostile comment ("boring play") into a revision task (strengthen the introduction). How does she do that? What's the mental move she makes between "I hate this reviewer" and "I'll add sentences to my introduction"?** *What does she focus on that she can control? What does she let go?* **3. Kelly says: "A critical comment can lead you to walk away from a project, or it can fuel some great rethinking and revising work." The same comment can do either thing. What determines which one it does?** *What factors — about you, about the comment, about the context — make the difference between those two outcomes?* [[Reference: The Two-Step Response Process->Group4-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group4-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group4-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 4 — Discussion 2: Practicing the Two Steps **Goal**: Apply Kelly's two-step process to a real or sample Reviewer Two comment. ### From Understanding to Application Kelly includes sample Reviewer Two comments in her appendix specifically so writers can practice this process. The skill is transferable — any time you get feedback that initially makes you want to quit, the two-step process gives you a way through. ### Questions **1. Kelly's Appendix includes this comment: "I find the whole middle section of this draft confusing. You need to cut that section and change your topic." Practice the two steps: write a brief initial response (what do you actually feel reading that?), then a planned response (what could you actually do?)** *Notice: the planned response doesn't have to accept the reviewer's suggestion. It has to engage with what the comment might be pointing to — even if the reviewer's solution is wrong.* **2. Think about a comment you received on your MA1 peer review that felt confusing, frustrating, or unfair. Without sharing what it said, can you describe what made it feel that way? Was it the content of the comment, the way it was phrased, or something else?** *Kelly distinguishes between comments that are wrong vs. comments that are right but expressed badly. Which type is harder to work with, and why?* **3. Kelly argues that even a bad comment can help you revise if it gets you to think about what the reviewer focused on. In other words: the fact that someone responded badly to your writing is itself information, even if their specific suggestion is wrong. Can you think of an example where a useless comment still pointed toward a real issue?** *A confused reader, even a bad one, is still a confused reader. What does that confusion tell you?* ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: Pick one comment from your MA1 peer review and write out both steps: your initial response (unfiltered) and your planned response (what you'll actually do). - **Option B**: Practice with one of Kelly's Appendix 1 sample comments. Write both the initial response and the planned response. - **Option C**: Write a brief "translation" of a confusing or frustrating comment you received — what do you think the reviewer was actually trying to say, stripped of the way they said it? [[Reference: The Two-Step Response Process->Group4-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group4-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group4-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 4 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): What's the most important thing your group identified about why the two-step process works — or what makes it hard? **2. Specific Example** (1 min): ONE concrete moment — either from your practice with a sample comment or from your own MA1 experience. **3. Application** (30 sec): One thing the class can do right now, before Friday, to apply this process to their MA1 revision. ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - What's your specific example? - What's your takeaway for the class? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Specifics over generalities.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group4-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: The Two-Step Response Process **What it is**: A method for responding to difficult or Reviewer Two-style feedback by separating the emotional response from the revision plan — writing an unfiltered initial response first, then separately deciding what to do. **Why it matters for your writing**: Trying to plan a revision while you're still reacting emotionally to feedback tends to produce bad decisions — either ignoring the comment entirely or over-correcting out of anxiety. The two-step process gives you permission to feel what you feel, then make a clear-headed plan. ### Key Points - **Step 1 (Initial response)**: Freewrite your unfiltered reaction — anger, frustration, confusion, the impulse to give up. Get it out of your head. - **Step 2 (Planned response)**: Ask what the comment might actually be pointing to, even if it's expressed badly. What can you control? What revision task emerges? - A confused or hostile reviewer is still a reader. Their reaction — even if their suggestion is wrong — is information about what your writing is (or isn't) doing. ### Example Kelly received: "I don't understand why anyone would want to write about this boring play." Initial response: frustration, self-doubt, impulse to give up. Planned response: strengthen the introduction to establish why the play matters — something she could actually do, regardless of whether the reviewer was being fair. ### How to Apply This When you get feedback that makes you want to quit: (1) write the angry version first — just for yourself; (2) then look at the comment again and ask: *What was this reader responding to? What, if anything, can I actually use?* You don't have to take the suggestion. You do have to make a decision. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]]

## Group 5: From Feedback to Revision Plan Your group explores Kelly's **revision plan chart** — a concrete tool for turning all the feedback you've received (from peers, from the instructor, from anyone) into a prioritized list of revision tasks. *Why this matters*: Your MA1 final draft is due Friday. You have peer review feedback in your hands. The revision plan chart is how you turn that pile of comments into a plan you can actually execute. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: How does the revision plan chart work? 2. **Discussion 2**: Start building your own. 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize your findings to share with the class. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group5-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Reference: The Revision Plan Chart->Group5-Reference]]

## Group 5 — Discussion 1: How the Chart Works **Goal**: Understand how Kelly's revision plan chart transforms feedback from a pile of comments into a set of actionable decisions. ### Context Kelly's chart — in Appendix 2 of the reading — has four columns: | Features evaluated | Peer-reviewer comment | Reflection (Valid or not?) | Planned response | The **features evaluated** column corresponds to Kelly's five question areas: Originality, Argumentation (arrangement), Engagement with relevant research (examples), Readability, Other. The **peer-reviewer comment** column is where you record what was actually said — as specifically as possible. The **reflection column** is the most important one: you decide whether the comment is valid. Kelly is explicit about this: "It is possible for a peer reviewer to be wrong." You are the author. You don't have to accept every suggestion. But even an invalid comment deserves a response — because the fact that a reader reacted that way is still information. The **planned response** column is where you translate your reflection into a specific task: revise this sentence, cut this section, clarify this point, add an example here. Kelly also notes that you can add a column to prioritize tasks — tackling easy wins first (correcting a specific term) or structural issues first (reorganizing examples in the second half). Either approach is fine; the point is that you have a plan, not just a list of comments to feel overwhelmed by. ### Questions Work through these individually first, then discuss with your group. **1. Why does the reflection column matter — the one where you decide "valid or not?" What's the risk of skipping that step and just treating every comment as a task to complete?** *Kelly says: "writing just to please your reviewer isn't going to help you develop your writing skills." What does she mean? What gets lost when you revise purely to satisfy feedback rather than to achieve your own goals?* **2. Kelly's sample chart shows a comment that the reviewer marked "Not valid" — they disagreed with the suggestion to cut examples, because they believed the examples were the strongest part of the essay. But they still wrote a planned response. Why? What does it look like to respond productively to a comment you think is wrong?** *"Not valid" doesn't mean "ignore it." What does it mean?* **3. Kelly mentions that multiple reviewers often give contradictory feedback — one says add more detail, another says cut. If you received conflicting comments on your MA1, how would you use the chart to navigate that? What column is most useful for resolving contradictions?** *When two reviewers disagree, one of them might be right. Or they might both be pointing to the same problem from different angles. How do you tell the difference?* [[Reference: The Revision Plan Chart->Group5-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group5-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group5-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 5 — Discussion 2: Building Your Chart **Goal**: Begin applying the revision plan chart to your actual MA1 feedback. ### From Understanding to Application The chart is most useful when you're staring at a pile of comments and don't know where to start. It breaks the revision process into decisions you can actually make, one at a time. ### Questions **1. Take two or three comments from your MA1 peer review and map them onto Kelly's chart. For each: What feature does it address? What did the reviewer actually say? Is it valid? What's your planned response?** *You don't have to fill in every row. Start with the comments that feel most important — or most confusing.* **2. After mapping your comments, look at your planned responses. Kelly suggests prioritizing global revisions (structure, argument, development) before local ones (sentences, word choice). Looking at your chart: are your planned responses mostly global, mostly local, or mixed? What does that tell you about where to focus your revision time before Friday?** *If most of your planned responses are local (fix this sentence, change this word), what's that a sign of?* **3. Kelly quotes Neil Gaiman at the end of the reading: "When people tell you something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong." How does this distinction — between the problem being real and the suggested solution being wrong — show up in your chart?** *Look at your "valid or not?" column again. Are there cases where you wrote "valid" but then disagreed with the reviewer's suggested fix?* ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: Add a fifth column to your chart: **Priority (1-3)**. Assign each planned response a priority level, with 1 being what you'll tackle first. What ends up at the top? - **Option B**: Based on your chart, write a 2-3 sentence revision plan for your MA1: what are the two or three most important things you need to do before Friday? - **Option C**: Identify the one comment on your MA1 that you're most uncertain about — you're not sure if it's valid, or you know it's valid but don't know how to respond. Write out the uncertainty itself as specifically as you can. [[Reference: The Revision Plan Chart->Group5-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group5-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group5-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 5 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): What's the most important thing your group identified about how the revision plan chart works — or what makes it hard to use? **2. Specific Example** (1 min): ONE concrete moment from your discussion — a comment you worked through, a "valid or not?" decision that was difficult, a pattern you noticed across your feedback. **3. Application** (30 sec): One thing the class should do with their MA1 feedback before sitting down to revise. ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - What's your specific example? - What's your takeaway for the class? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Specifics over generalities.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group5-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: The Revision Plan Chart **What it is**: A four-column tool for turning peer review feedback into a prioritized revision plan. Adapted by Kelly from Wendy Laura Belcher's system for responding to journal reviewer reports. **Why it matters for your writing**: Having a pile of comments is not the same as having a plan. The chart forces you to make three decisions for each comment: What is it about? Is it valid? What will I actually do? ### Key Points The four columns: - **Features evaluated**: Which area does this comment address? (Originality, argument development, arrangement, readability, other) - **Peer-reviewer comment**: What exactly did they say? - **Reflection (Valid or not?)**: Is this a real problem? You decide — reviewers can be wrong. - **Planned response**: What specific task does this generate? Even an invalid comment deserves a response. Optional: add a **Priority** column to order your tasks. ### Example Comment: "There are so many examples from past elections, and I'm getting lost. Maybe cut some?" Reflection: Not valid — the examples are the strongest part. Planned response: Check and clarify the significance of every example. Don't cut them; explain them better. ### How to Apply This Work through your comments one at a time. For each: (1) classify it by feature, (2) write down exactly what was said, (3) decide if it's valid — and write down why, (4) write a specific task, not a vague intention. "Improve introduction" is not a task. "Add two sentences establishing why this literacy experience mattered beyond my own life" is a task. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]]

## Bringing It Together Each group shares (2-3 min each): Key insight → Specific example → Takeaway for the class. ### As You Listen - What patterns do you notice across the five groups? - Where do Kelly's different frameworks connect to each other? - What tensions or contradictions emerged — places where the groups reached different conclusions? ### Synthesis Questions After all groups have shared: - Kelly argues that peer review is both something you can get better at *and* a process you can rely on to improve your writing. Based on what all five groups discussed, what does "getting better at it" actually require? - Your MA1 final draft is due Friday. What is the single most important thing you learned today about how to use the feedback you have? - We read Grauman on Wednesday. Based on what you discussed today, what questions do you want Grauman to answer? [[Looking Ahead (MW) →->MW-Looking-Ahead]] [[Looking Ahead (WF) →->WF-Looking-Ahead]]

## Looking Ahead - **By Wednesday**: - Read: Grauman, Jillian. "What's That Supposed to Mean? Using Feedback on Your Writing." - **By Friday (2/27)**: - **Major Assignment 1: Multimodal Literacy Narrative** — final draft due - **Reading Summary 3** — due - Conference I is happening this week. Check your scheduled time. Questions? Concerns? Use Canvas Messages anytime or stop by my office hours (on our home page). [[← Back to start->Start]]

## Looking Ahead - **By Friday (2/27)**: - **Major Assignment 1: Multimodal Literacy Narrative** — final draft due - **Reading Summary 3** — due - Conference I is happening this week. Check your scheduled time. Questions? Concerns? Use Canvas Messages anytime or stop by my office hours (on our home page). [[← Back to start->Start]]