back to 3001 homepage

Peer Review of Oral Presentations

(Be sure to review this page carefully right before you review
each of two of your classmates' presentations so that
you'll have the guidelines for this assignment in mind as you listen.)

As we’ve noted, one goal here is to imitate as best we can a professional environment, particularly one in which writers collaborate with each other toward better final research projects. The peer critiques that you write this semester will contribute toward that goal. Remember that you will be graded on these peer critiques, and that the grade will be based on the sincerity of your efforts to really help the colleague whose work you are assessing. Your goal with this peer review is to help a classmate present his or her ideas more effectively. In addition, going through these steps should also cause you to reflect on how to improve your own presentation skills.

Jot down notes for this peer review assignment in class as best you can while listening to each of the presentations given by the two people you are critiquing. Outside of class, write two or three paragraphs about each presentation in response to the guidelines below; as always, concision and clarity are essential. Then post them as one labeled document, linked to the appropriate section of your assignment index (as with all assignments, make sure that this one has a link back to your assignment index). Also be sure to hand in your grading sheets to Dr. Engles.  Your last step is to send two more e-mail messages, one to each of the presenters--cut and paste into these messages the URL for your pair of posted critiques so that the presenters can easily find it (their e-dresses are available here). The deadline for doing all of this is one week after the presentation of the second person you critique.

Remember, too, that your comments are meant to help your presenters with their oral presentation skills, as well as with their final report. Offer any helpful ideas or suggestions you might have on their presentation skills and methods.

Each peer critique you write should address the following elements of the presentation; you do not need to address all of the writing prompts offered below as questions:

• Audience awareness: As previously noted, oral reports are all about audiences, and about how you can best convey the results of your research in an intellectually substantive and engaging way. Your first question as a helpful observer, then, is: how well did this presenter convey the results of his or her research? In what sense was it engaging or intellectually substantive?

• Introduction: Did you and the audience clearly understand the basics (the who, what, when and where) of your presenter’s project? How well did the introduction work, both in terms of information presented and in terms of how it drew in the audience members and kept their attention?

• The researched writer: What did you learn about your presenter’s subject as a writer? Did he or she adequately explain important characteristics of this person as a writer, and how this writer typically proceeds from blank page to finished draft? How well did he or she describe the “big picture” that is, all of the myriad sorts of writing his or her subject accomplishes regularly? Did the presenter explain the writing samples and analytical concepts that he or she would like to focus on in enough detail?

• Ideas and analysis: This is our intellectual common ground, so your presenters should have touched on at least two of these areas. Briefly summarize what the presenter you are critiquing said about these areas. Then offer any further thoughts you might have for areas or ideas the presenter could also think about. To remind you, these areas included:

* Technology usage and collaborative work methods: John Seely Brown

* Socio-economic class and communication styles: bell hooks

* Race, gender, and other forms of privilege: Peggy McIntosh

* Literary versus professional writing styles: Tom McKeown

• More general considerations: Did your presenter explicitly discuss his or her analytical thinking, however tentative it might be at this point? Which areas seem to have more significance for the writer under discussion? In what ways?  How well did your presenter present evidence? Did he or she include in any way effective examples of some of the different kinds of information we have been gathering (observations, interviews, close examinations of texts, and articles found through bibliographic research)? Which of these seemed to be most effectively presented, and which would you say needs further work to be effective in the final report?

• Q & A: Finally, conclude your critique with some thoughts about the conversation or discussion that followed the presentation (and, perhaps, took place during it). How well did your presenter handle questions? Did he or she seem to be able to provide answers, and were these answers ones that seemed to keep the conversation going? Did the presenter also have some good questions to ask the audience?