Day Five Class Notes

Announcements

• Extend deadline to respond to small peer response group drafts - Tuesday, June 16, noon.
• Extend deadline for revision of Wikipedia Debate essay - Monday, June 22, noon.
• (Send your revised draft as an attachment to Michael.Kuhne@minneapolis.edu)

Small Peer Response Group Conferences

Instructor's Focus for the Wikipedia Debate essay (10 minutes)

• clear organization of the essay (introduction, body, conclusion)
• a concise lead and a focused thesis statement (with sub-claims is a plus)
• focused analytical body paragraphs (claim - evidence - explanation - closing)
• improvements with MLA (introductions to sources, signal phrases, punctuation/formatting, in-text citations)
• A good faith effort with the Works Cited page

The Small Peer Response Group Process (5)

• move into your small peer response groups (you may need to have computers on and the essays in front of you; that's fine)
• one person volunteers to have his or her essay critiqued
• one person volunteers to begin critiquing
• in your discussions, stay focused on the items noted above
• don't simply draw attention to an error or omission - make concrete suggestions for how the writer can improve the essay
• when one person is done, move on to the next person

Small peer response group conferences (40 minutes)

revision plan (10)

• what you need to do
• when you are going to do it

The revision deadline has been extended to Monday, 22 June, by noon. (please note, however, that the rough draft deadline for the Wikipedia Feature Article Analysis is also Monday, June 22; plan your time accordingly).

Submit the revised Wikipedia Debate essay as an email attachment to Michael.Kuhne@minneapolis.edu

Instructor Sampling (20 minutes)

• Focused lead/hook (Aaron and Biniam)
• Clear thesis with sub-claims (Jordana)
• Analytical Body Paragraphs and use of MLA (Keira)

Wikipedia Feature Article Analysis

Begin discussion of next major writing assignment: Wikipedia Feature Article Analysis (60 min)

Search--Find out what a Feature Article is in Wikipedia

--view criteria
--discuss criteria

• are they manageable? reasonable?
• what don't you understand?

Find a feature article about a topic that interests you
-- read it
-- identify how this article meets three of the criteria (directed writing)
-- pair discussion

Find a non-feature article about a topic that interests you
-- read it
-- identify three criteria which this article does not meet (directed writing)
-- pair discussion

Large group discussion
How do wikipedians meet the standards established in the criteria?