Você está na página 1de 3

UWRT 1101

Ashley Marcum, Instructor


Peer Review QuestionsLiteracy Project
Review=Jim Farrell Author=Emilio Medina
Directions: Respond to the following questions thoroughly, respectfully, and constructively. Please
write your full responses in black text to these questions in this document and save your revised
document as Last Name PRQs (Peer Review Questions for Last Name.) For example, my PRQs for
Johnny Appleseed would be named MarcumPRQsAppleseed. Please indicate on your paper your name
and the name of the author that you are responding to. Note, you should also make revision
suggestions, comments, and responses on the paper itself using the review tool in Word. You are
working together to improve each others writing: be sure that the kinds of responses you are giving
are the kinds of responses you would like to receive on your paper. Everyone appreciates both praise
and constructive criticism.
1. Read the first snapshot essay and then stop. In a sentence or two, describe what you expect
the author to say in this essay. Who and what is this paper going to focus on? As a reader, can
you tell what main theme is going to run throughout the collage essay? Does the snapshot
make sense without having the prompts as titles? Do the collage sections have titles or
astericks?
There is actually no separation at all between snapshots. The paper is written in a continuous
format. The overall expectation from the firs paragraph is that this will be a story on how the
author defines literacty and how he was able to gain literacy.
2. Finish reading the entire essay. Respond in the margins with your first reactions as a reader.
Briefly summarize the essay (2-3 sentences). Then summarize each paragraph in a sentence
or less. Where does the author get off track? Where does the author stay focused? If you are
having a hard time summarizing the paragraphs, then something in the paragraph may be
undermining the focus.
The author has overcome great adversity. While he is actually an incredibly smart individual he is
often misjudged because of an incredibly difficult language barrier.
3. How well does the author begin the story? What does the author do to keep the readers reading,
ie. a hook or reason to be drawn in? What could he/she do to draw the reader in more? Does the first
snapshot give a sense of where the rest of the snapshots are going? Do you think another of the
snapshots would work better as a beginning? Does the concluding snapshot help bring the collection
to a sense of closure? Does it point to how literacy will impact them in the future? If the last
snapshot is not satisfying, what would you do to make it more engaging?
I found the beginning of the essay to be incredibly well thought out and captivating. He used a lot of
effective techniques and personal details to hold my attention.
4. Do each of the snapshots have clear imagery, description, details, dialogue? Does author share a
creative non-fiction collage that relates at least three or four major literacy events or elements?
Also, do the snapshots point to how the event illustrates something about literacy? Highlight the
sections of the essay where you feel the author is able to critically reflect on the cultures within
which the literacy event/s occur.
Each topic has great supporting details but I feel as if the topics are not defined and separated
enough to stand alone.
5. Does the organization of the paper make sense? How has the author woven together the
snapshots? Can you see the authors self displayed in fragments made beautiful by their
juxtapositions? (Miller and Paola 111). If the structure seems either confusing or strong indicate

where you see this. How would you improve it? For example, if the author has chosen to use
asterisks between snapshots, would titles, numbers, or epigraphs (opening quotes) be better to
structure the snapshots? Is there sufficient repetition of the main points/images of the authors
literacy history or present and at the same time avoid monotonous repetition?
The organization of prompts within the essay have a decent flow because the paper was written in a
continuous format and not divided into the different snapshot prompts. Dividing the prompts would
make the different topic more evident and alleviate the need for transitions and such.
6. Does the author consider the audience? Indicate how the author could address the audience
better or where the author does a good job of considering the audience.
He definitely considers his audience. He defines acronyms and explains what they are. The whole
paper has a conversational tone about it that makes it much easier and more enjoyable to read.
7. List two things you think the author does a good job on. List two things you think the author
should work on. Make at least one suggestion for how she/he might go about improving each of
those aspects of the essay.
Emilio makes the paper very personal, which makes it enjoyable and easy to relate too. He
acknowledges his writing faults and difficulties but continues to explain why they exist. I couldnt
imagine how hard it is to not only learn a new language, and pursue a college education with it is
impressive. While it may not be grammatically correct I enjoy reading the paper the way it was
written. It seems very genuine and explains the authors position well without the need of detail on
top of detail. The way it is written shows great personality.

8. List two things you would like to hear more about. What does the author not deal with as much or
as well as youd like? Explain what and why you think these elements are important enough to
include. Personally, I want to hear more about the grandfather and how he gained his political
status. He was obviously hugely influential in the authors life so Id like to hear a little more about
him. Id also like to here more about the ruthless writing teacher.

Você também pode gostar