Peer Review: Chips

Peer Review Worksheet – Inquiry Essay

Introduction:

What is the initial inquiry question?  Is it expressed clearly?  Why/why not?

Why can’t I just eat one chip? Is expressed clearly in the first paragraph.

How does the author draw in the reader’s interest?  Can it more effectively?  Is this an inquiry with greater import?  Is it expressed? (note: it might be more effective expressed later in the inquiry.)

The author draws in the reader’s interest pretty effectively with a descriptive setting and an initial question.

Do we know where the author prior knowledge?  Does s/he have a stake in the inquiry?

The author does not mention any prior knowledge, but it isn’t really expected for this topic. She does hold a stake in the inquiry through her self experiment.

Voice:

How would you characterize the voice?  Is it effective for the subject material?  Do we believe in the inquisitiveness of the author (does this matter to him/her)?

The voice is appropriate to the paper and is effective to talk about the addiction of chips. The author has a clear inquisitive tone.

If the voice/tone breaks from type, point it out to the author.  Should it not?

The voice is pretty consistent throughout.

Abstactions/Generalities: are there any instances where abstract ideas need specific details and concrete support for greater understanding?  Point these out.

The paper was specific and the author went into the details well for each of her points.

Body:

Is the author’s thought process evident?  Are we led smoothly from one section of the inquiry to the next?  Are there any questions/answers the author missed?  What are they?

The author strings her own story of eating her chip and each part of the journey in with all the research and personal examples. That was a really interesting way of formatting it. It could be a bit jumpy, but you kept each part of your chip story succinct so it flows well.

Does the author question his/her own assumptions, findings, logic? 

The author does question her findings and explores them further with additional research.

How is research effectively used?  Incorporation of quotes?  Does the research lead to other branchs of inquiry?  Intellectual disciplines?  Are there missed opportunities for expansion?

The author uses many source and quotes to keep questions flowing. A further question could be “What makes us stop”

Does the author maintain your interest?  How so?  Where does your attention lag?  Why?  How can it be fixed?

The author maintains my interest throughout through her extensive research and interesting style. My attention did not lag.

Does the reader continue to broaden the inquiry?  Should it be further broadened, complicated?

The reader continues to broaden the inquiry.

Conclusion:

How does the conclusion operate? (Is an answer found?  Is the initial inquiry complicated, expanded?  Does it point to further inquiry?  Does it conclude with greater import/implications?)

The conclusion works in two parts: the conclusion of the narrative and the answer to why you can’t eat just one chip. The writing does open up further inquiry through the repercussions like getting obesity and how companies use chemicals to fool our brains.

Is it effective?  Are you, the reader, satisfied with the ending?  Why, why not?  What are some suggestions for greater effectiveness?

The paper was effective and I am satisfied with the ending because it had a satisfactory answer to the question.