ENC 1101: Using Your Feedback

## Using Your Feedback **Course**: ENC 1101 **Instructor**: Glenn S. Ritchey III Today you'll spend a few minutes with Grauman's framework for reading feedback—then put it to work in a second round of peer review on MA1. This is your last chance to get eyes on your draft before it's due. ### What you'll do 1. Work through a short discussion with your group on Grauman's framework 2. Set your goals for today's peer review 3. Do the peer review **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, and take notes however works best for you. ### Peer Review After the Twine discussion, you'll move into the actual peer review. Your instructor will give you your partner assignments. [[← Back to start->Start]]

## Group Assignments [[Group 1: What Kind of Comment Is It? →->Group1-Opening]] [[Group 2: The Fixed vs. Growth Mindset →->Group2-Opening]] [[Group 3: Setting Your Goals First →->Group3-Opening]] [[Group 4: Deciding What to Act On →->Group4-Opening]] [[Group 5: Translating Feedback into Tasks →->Group5-Opening]]

## Using Feedback: The Big Picture Grauman argues that getting feedback and *using* feedback are two entirely different skills—and most people were never taught the second one. Her framework has one core assumption: writing ability is not a fixed trait. It develops. That means feedback isn't a verdict on who you are as a writer. It's information about what your draft is doing right now. **Key Concept**: Growth mindset about feedback — treating comments as data about your draft, not judgments about your worth as a writer. **Today's Question**: What do you actually need from feedback on this draft—and how do you make sure you get it, even in a second round of peer review? *Your group explores one piece of Grauman's framework in depth, then uses it to set up your peer review today.* [[← Back to MW Groups->MW-Groups]] [[← Back to WF Groups->WF-Groups]]

## Group 1: What Kind of Comment Is It? Your group focuses on Grauman's taxonomy of comment types—and why knowing the difference changes how you read your feedback. *Why this matters*: Most students read all feedback the same way: as criticism to either accept or defend against. Grauman gives you a more precise vocabulary, which makes you a better reader of your own feedback and a more useful reviewer for someone else. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: What are the three types of comments, and what does each one ask you to do? 2. **Peer Review Prep**: Set your goals for today's review using what you just discussed. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group1-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Key Concept: Comment Types->Group1-Reference]]

## Group 1 — Discussion 1: Reading Comments More Precisely **Goal**: Understand the difference between judging, describing, and suggesting comments—and why each one requires a different response from you. ### Context Grauman identifies three types of comments instructors and peers leave on drafts. **Judging comments** assess the writing—they tell you something is strong, weak, unclear, or effective. They don't tell you what to do. **Describing comments** tell you what the reader experienced—"I got confused here," "this felt repetitive," "I wasn't sure what you meant by this word." They give you information without prescribing a fix. **Suggesting comments** tell you what to do—"add an example here," "cut this paragraph," "restructure your intro." They prescribe a solution. The problem: suggesting comments are the easiest to follow but the most dangerous to follow blindly. The reviewer might be wrong about the fix even if they're right that something isn't working. ### Questions Work through these individually first, then discuss with your group. **1. In your own words: what's the difference between a describing comment and a suggesting comment? Why does Grauman treat them as distinct?** ↳ Think about what each one asks you to do as a writer. One tells you what happened; the other tells you what to do about it. Why does that distinction matter? **2. Look at the feedback you received on your MA1 draft. Can you find one example of each type? Which type did you get most of?** ↳ You don't have to share the specific content—just the type and whether it was useful. **3. Grauman says suggesting comments are the riskiest to follow without thinking. Why? Have you ever revised something based on a suggestion and made it worse?** ↳ The reviewer diagnoses a symptom and prescribes a treatment—but they might be wrong about the treatment even if they're right about the symptom. [[Reference: Comment Types->Group1-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Peer Review Prep.* [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]] | [[Continue to Peer Review Prep →->Group1-PR-Prep]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group1-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 1 — Peer Review Prep **Goal**: Use Grauman's comment taxonomy to set up a more useful peer review. ### Setting Your Goals Before you read your partner's draft, decide: what do you actually want to give them? Most peer reviewers default to suggesting comments because they feel most helpful. Grauman would push back: describing comments—telling your partner what you experienced as a reader—are often more valuable, because they give the writer information without taking away their agency to decide what to do with it. ### Questions **1. For the draft you're about to read: what's the one area where your partner most needs a describing comment rather than a suggesting one?** ↳ Where do you want to tell them what you *experienced* rather than what they should *do*? **2. What's one specific question you'll bring to today's peer review—something you're genuinely curious about in their draft?** ↳ Good peer review is partly about your own curiosity as a reader. **3. Based on your MA1 feedback, what type of comment do you most need from your partner today—and will you ask for it directly before they start reading?** ↳ Grauman says setting your own goals is step one. You can actually tell your reviewer what you need. [[Reference: Comment Types->Group1-Reference]] #### *Time to share out, then move into peer review.* [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="480" data-passage="Group1-PR-Prep"> [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] </div>

## Reference: Comment Types **What it is**: Grauman's taxonomy of three types of feedback comments, each of which asks a different thing of the writer who receives them. ### Key Points - **Judging**: assesses quality — "your thesis is unclear," "strong opening." Tells you something isn't working but not what to do about it. - **Describing**: reports reader experience — "I got lost here," "this example felt disconnected." Gives you information without prescribing a fix. - **Suggesting**: prescribes action — "cut this," "add an example." Easiest to follow; riskiest to follow blindly. ### Example Comment: "Your conclusion feels abrupt." That's a describing comment—it tells you what the reader experienced. A suggesting version: "Add two more sentences to your conclusion." The describing version gives you more freedom to decide *how* to address the problem. ### How to Apply This When reading feedback, sort each comment by type before deciding what to do. Judging and describing comments tell you *that* something needs attention. Suggesting comments tell you *one possible way* to address it—not the only way. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]]

## Group 2: The Fixed vs. Growth Mindset Your group focuses on the psychological frame Grauman sets up before she gives any practical steps—and why it matters for how you approach today's session. *Why this matters*: How you think about feedback determines whether you can actually use it. If you're in fixed mindset mode, every comment feels like a verdict. Grauman's first move is to change that frame before anything else. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: What's the difference between fixed and growth mindset responses to feedback—and which one do you default to? 2. **Peer Review Prep**: Use the mindset shift to set up a more useful peer review for yourself and your partner. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group2-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Key Concept: Fixed vs. Growth Mindset->Group2-Reference]]

## Group 2 — Discussion 1: How You Think About Feedback **Goal**: Understand what Grauman means by fixed vs. growth mindset in the context of writing feedback—and identify which one you're operating from. ### Context Grauman opens with a story: she got a B- on a paper in college, stuffed it in her backpack without reading the comments, and never looked at it again. That's a fixed mindset response—the grade felt like a judgment on her ability, not information about the draft. A growth mindset response would have been to read the comments as data: what is this draft doing right now, and what does it need? Grauman's argument is that treating writing ability as fixed ("I'm just not a good writer") makes feedback feel threatening. Treating it as developable makes feedback feel useful. The same comment lands differently depending on which frame you're in. ### Questions Work through these individually first, then discuss with your group. **1. Grauman's B- story is about avoidance. Do you recognize that pattern in yourself—not looking at feedback, or looking at it without really engaging? What triggers it?** ↳ Be honest. This isn't about judging yourself; it's about knowing your own patterns so you can work with them. **2. Grauman says the fixed mindset makes feedback feel like a "personal attack." Why? What's the mental move that turns a comment about a draft into a comment about a person?** ↳ The draft isn't you. But it can feel like it is. What makes that happen? **3. Think about the feedback you received on your MA1. Did you read it from a fixed or growth mindset? How do you know?** ↳ Some clues: Did you feel defensive? Did you find yourself explaining why you made choices rather than considering whether to change them? Did any comment feel unfair in a way that made you want to dismiss it entirely? [[Reference: Fixed vs. Growth Mindset->Group2-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Peer Review Prep.* [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]] | [[Continue to Peer Review Prep →->Group2-PR-Prep]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group2-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 2 — Peer Review Prep **Goal**: Use the growth mindset frame to approach today's peer review differently—as a reviewer and as the person receiving feedback. ### Setting Your Goals The mindset shift isn't just about receiving feedback—it applies to giving it too. A fixed-mindset reviewer judges drafts. A growth-mindset reviewer helps writers understand what their draft is doing right now and what it could do next. ### Questions **1. Going into today's peer review: are you in a fixed or growth mindset about your own draft? What would it take to shift if you're not where you want to be?** ↳ It's okay to name that you're anxious, tired, or already attached to choices you made. Just name it. **2. As a reviewer: what does a growth-mindset peer review look like in practice? What does it look like to treat your partner as a writer who is still developing—not as a draft to be judged?** ↳ Grauman's frame is that all writers are in progress, including you and your partner. How does that change how you read? **3. What's one thing you want your partner to tell you about your draft today—something you genuinely don't know yet?** ↳ That question is your goal for this peer review session. Write it down and give it to them before they start reading. [[Reference: Fixed vs. Growth Mindset->Group2-Reference]] #### *Time to share out, then move into peer review.* [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="480" data-passage="Group2-PR-Prep"> [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] </div>

## Reference: Fixed vs. Growth Mindset **What it is**: Two frames for understanding writing ability, drawn from Carol Dweck's work and applied by Grauman to the experience of receiving feedback. ### Key Points - **Fixed mindset**: writing ability is a talent you either have or don't. Feedback feels like a verdict on your ability, which makes it threatening. - **Growth mindset**: writing ability develops through practice and feedback. Comments are data about your draft, not judgments about you. - The same comment lands differently depending on which frame you're in. Grauman's first move is to change the frame before giving any practical advice. ### Example Grauman's B- story: she stuffed the paper in her backpack without reading the comments. Fixed mindset in action—the grade felt final. A growth mindset response would have been to read every comment as information about what the draft was doing and what it needed next. ### How to Apply This Before you read feedback on your draft, name the mindset you're in. If you're in fixed mindset mode, try this reframe: the comments are not about you; they're about what your draft is doing right now. You are not your draft. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]]

## Group 3: Setting Your Goals First Your group focuses on the step Grauman puts before everything else: before you read a single comment, decide what you want to learn. *Why this matters*: Most students read feedback reactively—starting with whatever the instructor or peer wrote first. Grauman flips that. You set the agenda, then you read. That changes everything about how the feedback lands. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: Why does Grauman insist on setting goals *before* reading—and what does a good goal actually look like? 2. **Peer Review Prep**: Set your goals for today's session and help your partner set theirs. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group3-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Key Concept: Goal-Setting Before Feedback->Group3-Reference]]

## Group 3 — Discussion 1: Setting the Agenda **Goal**: Understand why goal-setting comes before feedback-reading in Grauman's framework—and what a useful goal looks like vs. a vague one. ### Context Grauman's step one isn't "read the feedback carefully." It's "figure out what you want to know about your writing before you read anything." Her reasoning: if you don't have your own goals, you'll be shaped entirely by what your reviewer happened to notice. Their agenda becomes your agenda. That might be fine—or it might pull you away from the most important work your draft needs. Setting your goals first means you read feedback as a filter, not as a to-do list. You're looking for the comments that speak to what you care about, while keeping perspective on the ones that don't. ### Questions Work through these individually first, then discuss with your group. **1. Grauman says setting goals before reading feedback puts you in charge of the revision process. What's the risk of skipping that step—of just reading feedback and starting to revise?** ↳ Think about a time you revised based on whatever the first comment said, only to realize later that wasn't the most important thing to fix. **2. What makes a goal useful? "Make it better" is not a goal. "Figure out if my thesis is clear to someone who doesn't know my story" is a goal. What's the difference?** ↳ A useful goal is specific enough that you'll know whether the feedback you receive actually addresses it. **3. Before you read your MA1 peer review, did you set any goals? If not—looking back now—what should your goals have been?** ↳ What did you most need to know about your draft that you weren't sure about? [[Reference: Goal-Setting Before Feedback->Group3-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Peer Review Prep.* [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]] | [[Continue to Peer Review Prep →->Group3-PR-Prep]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group3-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 3 — Peer Review Prep **Goal**: Write specific goals for today's peer review session—for your own draft, and as a reviewer for your partner. ### Setting Your Goals Grauman's framework works in both directions: you should set goals as the person receiving feedback, and you can help your partner set goals before you read their draft. That second move is underused in student peer review but makes a real difference. ### Questions **1. Write down two specific goals for today's peer review of your own draft. Not "get feedback on my writing"—something specific enough that you'll know whether the review addressed it.** ↳ Example: "I want to know if my central claim is clear without me having to explain it" or "I want to know if the transition between my second and third sections makes sense." **2. How would you help your partner set their goals before you read their draft? What question would you ask them?** ↳ Grauman says most writers know what they're worried about in their draft—they just haven't been asked. What's one question that would draw that out? **3. What's the difference between a goal that's about the draft ("is my thesis clear?") and a goal that's about you as a writer ("am I a good writer?")? Why does that distinction matter for how you'll read today's feedback?** ↳ One of those is answerable by peer review. The other isn't—and chasing it will make the feedback harder to use. [[Reference: Goal-Setting Before Feedback->Group3-Reference]] #### *Time to share out, then move into peer review.* [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="480" data-passage="Group3-PR-Prep"> [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] </div>

## Reference: Goal-Setting Before Feedback **What it is**: Grauman's first step in her feedback framework—deciding what you want to learn from feedback before you read a single comment. ### Key Points - Without your own goals, your reviewer's agenda becomes your agenda by default. - A useful goal is specific enough that you'll know whether the feedback addresses it. - Goals focus on the draft ("is my thesis clear?"), not on your identity as a writer ("am I good at this?"). - You can help your partner set goals before you read their draft—just ask what they're most uncertain about. ### Example Vague goal: "I want to know if it's good." Specific goal: "I want to know if a reader who doesn't know my family can still understand why this moment mattered to me." The second one is answerable. The first one isn't. ### How to Apply This Before every peer review session—as the writer receiving feedback—write down two or three specific questions you want the feedback to answer. Give them to your reviewer at the start. It makes their job easier and your revision more focused. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]]

## Group 4: Deciding What to Act On Your group focuses on the hardest part of Grauman's framework: not all feedback is equally useful, and you have to decide what to take seriously. *Why this matters*: Acting on every comment isn't revision—it's compliance. Grauman gives you tools for making judgment calls about which feedback serves your draft and which doesn't. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: How does Grauman say you decide what to act on—and what's the role of your own judgment as the author? 2. **Peer Review Prep**: Set up today's peer review with a clear plan for how you'll make those calls on your MA1 feedback. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group4-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Key Concept: Acting on Feedback->Group4-Reference]]

## Group 4 — Discussion 1: You Are the Author **Goal**: Understand Grauman's framework for deciding which feedback to act on—and why being the author means you always have the final call. ### Context Grauman is direct: not all feedback is useful, and you don't have to act on everything. She gives two main filters. First: does this comment point to something real in the draft, even if the reviewer's suggested fix is wrong? A confused reader is still a confused reader—that matters even if their solution wouldn't work. Second: does acting on this comment move your draft toward your own goals, or away from them? Grauman distinguishes between feedback that helps you write the paper you're trying to write and feedback that pulls you toward a different paper entirely. Both can be useful, but they require different responses. Sometimes the right move is to note a comment, understand what it's pointing to, and decide not to act on it—with a clear reason why. ### Questions Work through these individually first, then discuss with your group. **1. Grauman says you can decide not to act on feedback—but you still have to engage with it. What's the difference between deciding not to act on a comment after thinking it through vs. just ignoring it?** ↳ Both result in not changing the draft. But they're not the same thing. What's the difference? **2. You've gotten feedback on your MA1. Is there any comment you received that you disagree with—but that still points to something real in the draft, even if the reviewer's solution is wrong?** ↳ This is Grauman's key insight: a reviewer can be wrong about the fix and right about the problem. Can you find an example of that in your feedback? **3. What's one comment you received that you're genuinely unsure whether to act on? What would help you decide?** ↳ Name the uncertainty specifically. What information would resolve it? [[Reference: Acting on Feedback->Group4-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Peer Review Prep.* [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]] | [[Continue to Peer Review Prep →->Group4-PR-Prep]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group4-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 4 — Peer Review Prep **Goal**: Go into today's peer review with a clear sense of which existing comments you've already decided to act on—so you know what you still need. ### Setting Your Goals Grauman's framework means you shouldn't walk into a second peer review session without having sorted through what you already have. The most useful second round of feedback fills the gaps—it addresses the things your first reviewer didn't get to, or the questions you're still uncertain about. ### Questions **1. Based on the feedback you already have on MA1: what have you already decided to act on? What are you still undecided about?** ↳ You don't need to have it all figured out. But naming the undecided ones will help you know what to ask your partner for today. **2. What's the one area of your draft where you most need a second opinion—and why that area specifically?** ↳ A second peer review is most useful when it's targeted. What's still an open question for you? **3. As a reviewer today: how will you decide which comments to give? Grauman would say give the comments that help your partner write the paper *they're* trying to write. How will you figure out what that is?** ↳ Ask them. Before you read their draft, ask: what are you trying to do with this piece? That question changes everything about how you read it. [[Reference: Acting on Feedback->Group4-Reference]] #### *Time to share out, then move into peer review.* [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="480" data-passage="Group4-PR-Prep"> [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] </div>

## Reference: Acting on Feedback **What it is**: Grauman's framework for deciding which feedback to act on, which to note without acting on, and which to set aside—while remaining accountable to your own goals as a writer. ### Key Points - Not acting on a comment is different from ignoring it. You still have to engage with what it's pointing to. - A reviewer can be wrong about the fix and right about the problem. Sort those out before deciding. - The question is always: does acting on this move my draft toward what I'm trying to do, or away from it? - You are the author. Final call is yours. ### Example Comment: "You should cut the part about your grandmother." You disagree—that section is central to your argument. Right move: don't cut it, but ask yourself what the reviewer might have experienced that made them suggest it. Maybe the connection between that section and your thesis isn't clear yet. That's the real problem to fix. ### How to Apply This Sort your feedback into three categories: (1) acting on this, (2) understanding what this is pointing to but deciding not to take the suggested fix, (3) genuinely unsure. Category 3 is what you bring to your second peer reviewer. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]]

## Group 5: Translating Feedback into Tasks Your group focuses on Grauman's final move: turning comments into a concrete, manageable plan so revision actually happens. *Why this matters*: Most students read their feedback and then open their draft and start tinkering. Grauman says that's backwards—you end up making local changes when you might need global ones. The translation step forces you to think about what revision actually requires before you touch the draft. ### Your Pathway 1. **Discussion 1**: How does Grauman say to move from comments to tasks—and why does sequence matter? 2. **Peer Review Prep**: Build a quick revision plan for MA1 using what you've got so far. #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Discussion 1 →->Group5-Discussion-1]] #### Reference [[Key Concept: Feedback to Tasks->Group5-Reference]]

## Group 5 — Discussion 1: Making Revision Manageable **Goal**: Understand how Grauman recommends moving from feedback to an actionable revision plan—and why starting with global issues before local ones matters. ### Context Grauman says the biggest mistake writers make after getting feedback is opening the draft immediately and starting to revise whatever they see first. The problem: you end up spending your energy on sentence-level fixes when the draft might need structural work. Her recommendation is to translate feedback into tasks *before* you open the draft—and to order those tasks from global to local. Global issues are structural: Does the thesis hold? Does the organization work? Does the argument develop? Local issues are surface: word choice, sentence clarity, transitions, grammar. Fixing local issues in a section you're about to restructure is wasted effort. Do the global work first, then clean up the surface. ### Questions Work through these individually first, then discuss with your group. **1. Grauman says don't open the draft until you've made your revision plan. Why? What happens when you skip that step?** ↳ Think about the last time you revised something by just opening it and starting to edit. Did you end up making the most important changes, or the easiest ones? **2. What's the difference between a global issue and a local issue in a draft? Can you identify one of each in your own MA1?** ↳ Global: something about the argument, structure, or purpose. Local: something about a sentence, a word, or a transition. **3. If you have both global and local issues to address in your MA1, what's the cost of fixing the local ones first?** ↳ Grauman's answer: you might spend an hour polishing a paragraph you're about to cut. [[Reference: Feedback to Tasks->Group5-Reference]] #### *Ready to move on? Head to Peer Review Prep.* [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]] | [[Continue to Peer Review Prep →->Group5-PR-Prep]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="540" data-passage="Group5-Discussion-1"> </div>

## Group 5 — Peer Review Prep **Goal**: Build a quick, ordered revision task list from your existing MA1 feedback before the second round of peer review adds more. ### Setting Your Goals The most useful thing you can do before your partner reads your draft is know what you've already got—so you don't ask them to duplicate work that's already done, and so you can direct their attention to what's still open. ### Questions **1. From your existing MA1 feedback, list two global tasks and two local tasks. Then order them: what do you need to address before Friday in what sequence?** ↳ Global first. You can't know which sentences to polish until you know which sections are staying. **2. What's the one thing you most need your partner's eyes on today—and is it global or local?** ↳ If it's local (a specific paragraph, a transition, a sentence), that's fine—but be honest with yourself about whether you've already done the global work. **3. As a reviewer: your job today is to help your partner identify what they don't already know. What question would you ask before reading their draft to make sure you're not just duplicating their first reviewer's comments?** ↳ Ask: what feedback have you already gotten? What's still an open question for you? Then read for that. [[Reference: Feedback to Tasks->Group5-Reference]] #### *Time to share out, then move into peer review.* [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="480" data-passage="Group5-PR-Prep"> [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] </div>

## Reference: Feedback to Tasks **What it is**: Grauman's process for translating feedback comments into a prioritized revision plan before opening the draft. ### Key Points - Don't open the draft until you've made your plan. Otherwise you fix what's visible, not what's important. - Translate each comment into a specific, concrete task. "Improve the intro" is not a task. "Add a sentence establishing why this literacy experience mattered beyond my personal life" is a task. - Order tasks from global to local: structure and argument before sentences and word choice. - Fixing local issues in sections you're about to restructure is wasted effort. ### Example Comment: "The middle section feels disconnected." Task before opening draft: "Figure out whether the middle section supports the thesis as currently written, or whether the thesis needs to change to match what the middle section is actually doing." That's a global task. Don't touch the sentences in that section until you've answered it. ### How to Apply This After peer review today, before you open your draft to revise: write down every task the feedback generates, sort them into global and local, and number them in order. Then open the draft and work the list. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]]

## Bringing It Together Each group shares (1–2 min each): What's the one thing from Grauman's framework your group discussed that you're taking into peer review today? ### As You Listen - What do all five pieces of Grauman's framework have in common? - Which one feels most useful to you personally right now, and why? ### Before We Move Into Peer Review Take 60 seconds to write down: - One specific goal you want your partner to address in your draft today - One question you'll ask your partner before you read their draft *Then we'll do peer review.* [[Looking Ahead (MW) →->MW-Looking-Ahead]] [[Looking Ahead (WF) →->WF-Looking-Ahead]]

## Looking Ahead You've made it to the halfway point. Seriously — that's worth acknowledging. Seven weeks down, eight to go, and you've drafted, revised, received feedback, given feedback, and submitted a major piece of writing. That's the work of a writer. **Week 8 (3/2–3/6): Genre and the Rhetorics of Fashion** - **By Monday**: Read Kerry Dirk, "Navigating Genres" (Writing Spaces Vol. 1) **One more thing**: I'm canceling the required Conference II. It'll stay on the calendar as an optional meeting — if you want to meet with me before Week 15 to talk through anything (your writing, your grade, what's coming, whatever), grab a slot. No pressure, no penalty either way. I'd genuinely enjoy the conversation if you want it. Questions? Canvas Messages anytime or stop by my office hours (on our home page). [[← Back to start->Start]]