Peer Review on the second rhetorical analysis

First, as a few of you have already mentioned and/or emailed me about, the revision of the first project is actually due Monday and not Friday as I posted on Friday night.  My bad, though it probably would have been a good idea for me to make that deadline Friday so that folks would have that out of the way before they got into the draft of the second analysis.

Second, be mindful of the schedule for this peer review:  begin Monday (or early Tuesday), finish Wednesday (or early Thursday), and the final version needs to be posted to the emuonline dropbox for the second rhetorical analysis no later than midnight Friday, December 10. Then what will happen is on Friday (probably before midnight), I will post/make available the final for the course.  The final will be due on Friday, December 17, and when you turn it in, I’ll have the audio comments on the second project available for your enjoyment and reflection.

Okay, more about this peer review after the “continued” part.

First, here are the groups:

Group 1: Graham P.,  Adam H., Lauren G., Emily V.

Group 2: Ashlee W., Brian S., Rebecca M.

Group 3: Jeffrey P., Mia M., Kayla B., Nicole J.

I’ll send each group an email message so they have each others’ email addresses (if you didn’t already).

Now, as far as the logistics of this goes: we (meaning myself, Ashlee, Adam, Mia, and Kayla) talked about this at The Corner the other night, and the suggestion/consensus was to leave this part of things up to each writer.  If you want to post your essay to Google docs like we did last time, do so and share that link with the folks in your groups, that’s fine.  It has the advantage of being a single document that everyone can comment on together.  But if you’d prefer just to share an old-fashioned Word file or a PDF, you can email that to each other too and then each person can make comments on it.  In other words, it’s the writer’s choice as to the format of the draft.

I also think the writer should try to get the ball rolling on her or his peer review by trying to point the review into a direction of some sort– for example, what are you most concerned about with this draft?  What part do you like the best and/or like the least?  What sort of feedback are you looking for?

My main advice for all of you– besides this long post about the first short projects– is think theory first, framework second.  The goal of these assignments is for you to demonstrate some mastery of the understanding of the theory, which means I am less interested in the example you are working with (e.g., the BP oil spill, Facebook, manuals, cell phones, etc., etc.) and more interested in the theories you’re working with (rhetorical situation, the nonhuman, visual rhetoric, Paradis, etc.).  So make sure that is front and center in your work here.