Peer Review—Discovery Draft Use this guide to review your peer’s discovery draft. The goal is to give reader feedback on how well the writer is working with the text and working with his/her own ideas at this point in the drafting process. Procedure 1) Read this peer review guide. Get a sense of the type of observations and notes you will be asked to provide. Read the commenting advice in “Helpful Tips for Peer Review.” Review the advice in the Guide, Chapter 4, section “Writing Together: When You Don’t Have to Go It Alone. 2) Read through your peer’s draft quickly once to get the overall idea of the draft. With this first reading only make two kinds of marks: a plus ( + ) or green highlighting where you read something you find interesting or helpful and a question mark (?) or yellow highlighting where you read something unclear or confusing. 3) Re-read the draft and respond to the guiding questions. The goal is to provide the writer with a sense of how you read and understand the draft. Ultimately, the writer is responsible for turning this information into a plan for revision. 4) After you have answered all of the questions on this guide, go back and make any final notes that you think can help the writer decide how to revise. Do not spend time proofreading for grammatical or mechanical issues. We will have designated time for that when the content of the draft has been fully developed. 5) [Face-to-Face/Hybrid Courses] Give the completed guide and the marked-up draft back to the writer. Writers, bring the completed peer review guides to required conferences. You will turn in all drafts and peer feedback with the final draft. 6) Writers review all feedback. Look for patterns in the responses. Did a reader respond in a way you didn’t expect? Did both readers notice something you’re doing well? If time allows, talk with your partners about their feedback to clarify or get more information. Finally, what do you notice about your own draft now that you’ve reviewed others? Your next step is to create a revision plan. See the form “Notes for Revision From Peer Feedback”. Helpful Tips for Peer Review Name & Explain Keep in mind that helpful comments explain the reasons for a response because specific advice is always more helpful than vague observations. Don’t limit yourself to finding flaws; make note of anything that is presented in a clear or insightful way so that the writer can build on the existing strengths in the draft. However, avoid vague praise that does not give the writer a sense of why something works for you. Naming how and why helps the writer make a plan for revision and improvement. “As a reader…” Peer-to-peer commenting is a skill worth learning and practicing. However, it can also be intimidating. If you feel you don’t have the authority or experience to give advice to another writer, remember that your job is simply to give the writer a sense of how you experience and understand what the other person has written so far. If you are having trouble getting your comments down in writing, try the templates in Chap 4 (section “Writing Together: When You . . .”) of the UND Guide to Writing. On grammar and proofreading At this stage, only comment on grammar, punctuation, or spelling if an error truly causes confusion for you as a reader. In that case, the focus is really on meaning, not mechanics. Guiding Questions for Peer Review—Discovery Draft Write your responses to each question in addition to making marks on the draft as prompted. Note page numbers and paragraph numbers in your responses. Once you have completed the peer review guide, be sure to give your partner a copy of your review and the draft you marked. 1. Look back to the places you marked with either a + (or green highlighting) or a ? (or yellow highlighting). Explain why you’ve marked the passage as you did. If it was helpful, explain what the passage helps you understand about Mulvey’s argument. If you are confused, explain the source of the confusion and/or state your question. 2. Has the writer effectively explained ideas from Mulvey’s essay in order to explore how Rear Window deploys the power of the look/gaze? Has the writer worked within the frame of Mulvey’s ideas in order to extend and develop Mulvey’s analysis of Read Window? Has the writer developed a narrow focus that allows them to make their own statement about “the power of the look”? 3. Does the writer use the They Say/I Say conventions to deploy summary, paraphrase, and quotation strategically to clarify Mulvey’s ideas? Are these summaries and quotations being used in a way that makes them fit with his or her focus? Note specific places where the summaries could be improved. 4. Do the essay parts follow a logical sequence, with clear signposts and transitions that indicate to readers the purpose and significance of each section and how sections relate to one another? Suggest ways that the organization of the paper could be strengthened. 5. As a reader who knows the purpose of this assignment, what do think should be this writer’s 1-2 main points of revision? Explain. (Grammar/proofreading may not be listed as a priority at this point.) ENGL 110 Exercise06: Mulvey/Hitchcock Analysis #3 (10 Points) Due October 10th, 2021 (1) [6 points] Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” (1975) was extremely influential in the development of a feminist film criticism. Her argument, in a vastly oversimplified nutshell, is that “by orchestrating the ‘three looks’ of spectator, camera, and character, the cinematic appartatus naturalized a masculine gaze in the service of patriarchal ideology”. In other words, the camera’s gaze is implicitly male, because it objectifies the female characters it records, and the gazes of the (implicitly male) spectator and the male protagonist follow suit; the relationship is reinforced by a process of identification between the spectator and male protagonist in the film, who share the same “look”. Describe one movie (excluding Rear Window) for which this claim seems to be accurate in your opinion, and two more that present problems for this theory. (2) [2 points] Briefly explain the castration complex. (3) [2 points] Why is it important to critique “mainstream cinema,” according to Mulvey. Peer Review—Discovery Draft Use this guide to review your peer’s discovery draft. The goal is to give reader feedback on how well the writer is working with the text and working with his/her own ideas at this point in the drafting process. Procedure 1) Read this peer review guide. Get a sense of the type of observations and notes you will be asked to provide. Read the commenting advice in “Helpful Tips for Peer Review.” Review the advice in the Guide, Chapter 4, section “Writing Together: When You Don’t Have to Go It Alone. 2) Read through your peer’s draft quickly once to get the overall idea of the draft. With this first reading only make two kinds of marks: a plus ( + ) or green highlighting where you read something you find interesting or helpful and a question mark (?) or yellow highlighting where you read something unclear or confusing. 3) Re-read the draft and respond to the guiding questions. The goal is to provide the writer with a sense of how you read and understand the draft. Ultimately, the writer is responsible for turning this information into a plan for revision. 4) After you have answered all of the questions on this guide, go back and make any final notes that you think can help the writer decide how to revise. Do not spend time proofreading for grammatical or mechanical issues. We will have designated time for that when the content of the draft has been fully developed. 5) [Face-to-Face/Hybrid Courses] Give the completed guide and the marked-up draft back to the writer. Writers, bring the completed peer review guides to required conferences. You will turn in all drafts and peer feedback with the final draft. 6) Writers review all feedback. Look for patterns in the responses. Did a reader respond in a way you didn’t expect? Did both readers notice something you’re doing well? If time allows, talk with your partners about their feedback to clarify or get more information. Finally, what do you notice about your own draft now that you’ve reviewed others? Your next step is to create a revision plan. See the form “Notes for Revision From Peer Feedback”. Helpful Tips for Peer Review Name & Explain Keep in mind that helpful comments explain the reasons for a response because specific advice is always more helpful than vague observations. Don’t limit yourself to finding flaws; make note of anything that is presented in a clear or insightful way so that the writer can build on the existing strengths in the draft. However, avoid vague praise that does not give the writer a sense of why something works for you. Naming how and why helps the writer make a plan for revision and improvement. “As a reader…” Peer-to-peer commenting is a skill worth learning and practicing. However, it can also be intimidating. If you feel you don’t have the authority or experience to give advice to another writer, remember that your job is simply to give the writer a sense of how you experience and understand what the other person has written so far. If you are having trouble getting your comments down in writing, try the templates in Chap 4 (section “Writing Together: When You . . .”) of the UND Guide to Writing. On grammar and proofreading At this stage, only comment on grammar, punctuation, or spelling if an error truly causes confusion for you as a reader. In that case, the focus is really on meaning, not mechanics. Guiding Questions for Peer Review—Discovery Draft Write your responses to each question in addition to making marks on the draft as prompted. Note page numbers and paragraph numbers in your responses. Once you have completed the peer review guide, be sure to give your partner a copy of your review and the draft you marked. 1. Look back to the places you marked with either a + (or green highlighting) or a ? (or yellow highlighting). Explain why you’ve marked the passage as you did. If it was helpful, explain what the passage helps you understand about Mulvey’s argument. If you are confused, explain the source of the confusion and/or state your question. 2. Has the writer effectively explained ideas from Mulvey’s essay in order to explore how Rear Window deploys the power of the look/gaze? Has the writer worked within the frame of Mulvey’s ideas in order to extend and develop Mulvey’s analysis of Read Window? Has the writer developed a narrow focus that allows them to make their own statement about “the power of the look”? 3. Does the writer use the They Say/I Say conventions to deploy summary, paraphrase, and quotation strategically to clarify Mulvey’s ideas? Are these summaries and quotations being used in a way that makes them fit with his or her focus? Note specific places where the summaries could be improved. 4. Do the essay parts follow a logical sequence, with clear signposts and transitions that indicate to readers the purpose and significance of each section and how sections relate to one another? Suggest ways that the organization of the paper could be strengthened. 5. As a reader who knows the purpose of this assignment, what do think should be this writer’s 1-2 main points of revision? Explain. (Grammar/proofreading may not be listed as a priority at this point.)
Purchase answer to see full attachment