Audience
Analysis Peer
Review
Date
Assessment Completed by
Your first name Your last name
Peer Review of
Peer's first name Peer's last name
Instructions: Open the audience analysis assignment to be familiar with
the assignment and criteria while responding to these questions.
On another tab, have the "peer review sample.docx" (available via Unit
1 Peer Review and Final Draft Submission Folder) document open to help
guide your responses.
Your narrative responses must be in complete sentences and must use
language found in "peer review sample.docx"
The analysis addresses all questions for analysis. If not, then list
all of the missing responses to questions for your peer.
The analysis is well organized. It has a clear structure with an
introduction, a body, and a conclusion. If there is not a clear
structure, provide a comment about how to make the structure clearer.
Use the template language from the peer review worksheet to guide your
response.
The memo includes a clear analysis of the two web sites, including
comparison and contrast of the sites themselves and their target
audiences. It does not just describe. If there is not a clear analysis
of a technical and non-technical website, provide feedback to your
peer on where the analysis needs to be in the document. Point out any
areas where there is description.
The analysis is concrete in that it uses examples from the Websites to
support major points. The use of examples is selective and to-the-
point. The examples are included in order to illustrate the analysis
point and not to fill the page with words. There are no long direct
quotations (defined as more than 3 lines) from the analyzed Websites.
The student explains how the examples relate back to the analysis. If
there are any deviations to this criteria, provide your peer with
feedback using the peer review worksheet templates to guide your
responses.
The memo is formatted correctly following the specified guidelines for
memos from Chapter 11. APA citation style is used when needed. If
there are errors, point those out to your peer.
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation are correct. Minimum word
requirement is met. If there are errors, point those out to your peer.
Rate how well the paper aligns with the assignment guidelines
(minimal = does not meet assignment guidelines; medium = meets about
75% of the assignment guidelines; very high = meets 95% or above of
the assignment guidelines)
Minimal
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Suggestions for meeting the assignment guidelines
Write a final comment to your peer about two of the overall strengths
and one overall weakness of the of first draft
fc-int01-generateAppearances: Write a final comment to your _c0mYmW31klBahJlNu8exRg: Suggestions for meeting the as_CzuQJ4sl0oFVVOQtHwVxww: Rate how well the paper aligns_xGj*Mf662S59NmjLXN4IeA: OffSpelling, grammar, and punctua_776dwFqkA00GvUjKTQJxvg: The memo is formatted correctl_Vf84mc.
1. Audience
Analysis Peer
Review
Date
Assessment Completed by
Your first name Your last name
Peer Review of
Peer's first name Peer's last name
Instructions: Open the audience analysis assignment to be
familiar with
the assignment and criteria while responding to these questions.
On another tab, have the "peer review sample.docx" (available
via Unit
1 Peer Review and Final Draft Submission Folder) document
open to help
guide your responses.
Your narrative responses must be in complete sentences and
must use
language found in "peer review sample.docx"
The analysis addresses all questions for analysis. If not, then
list
all of the missing responses to questions for your peer.
2. The analysis is well organized. It has a clear structure with an
introduction, a body, and a conclusion. If there is not a clear
structure, provide a comment about how to make the structure
clearer.
Use the template language from the peer review worksheet to
guide your
response.
The memo includes a clear analysis of the two web sites,
including
comparison and contrast of the sites themselves and their target
audiences. It does not just describe. If there is not a clear
analysis
of a technical and non-technical website, provide feedback to
your
peer on where the analysis needs to be in the document. Point
out any
areas where there is description.
The analysis is concrete in that it uses examples from the
Websites to
support major points. The use of examples is selective and to-
the-
point. The examples are included in order to illustrate the
analysis
point and not to fill the page with words. There are no long
direct
quotations (defined as more than 3 lines) from the analyzed
Websites.
The student explains how the examples relate back to the
analysis. If
there are any deviations to this criteria, provide your peer with
feedback using the peer review worksheet templates to guide
your
3. responses.
The memo is formatted correctly following the specified
guidelines for
memos from Chapter 11. APA citation style is used when
needed. If
there are errors, point those out to your peer.
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation are correct. Minimum word
requirement is met. If there are errors, point those out to your
peer.
Rate how well the paper aligns with the assignment guidelines
(minimal = does not meet assignment guidelines; medium =
meets about
75% of the assignment guidelines; very high = meets 95% or
above of
the assignment guidelines)
Minimal
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Suggestions for meeting the assignment guidelines
Write a final comment to your peer about two of the overall
4. strengths
and one overall weakness of the of first draft
fc-int01-generateAppearances: Write a final comment to your
_c0mYmW31klBahJlNu8exRg: Suggestions for meeting the
as_CzuQJ4sl0oFVVOQtHwVxww: Rate how well the paper
aligns_xGj*Mf662S59NmjLXN4IeA: OffSpelling, grammar, and
punctua_776dwFqkA00GvUjKTQJxvg: The memo is formatted
correctl_Vf84mcS3vxopLbkXV*n7*A: The analysis is concrete
in th_tE-ORJeN8AL4CYeBxEk4UA: The memo includes a clear
anal_jQzSZgiUC5cElnioiRfduw: The analysis is well
organized_z1h65HRzM*1p0hpK4EQvjQ: The analysis addresses
all que_mL5zKeLhToYv7B93hwQUTg: Peer_s last
name_14n5Ecj*63uqqOIXGHIkhw: Peer_s first
name_4a42Ecc0NIAxFyoNcHWRLA: Your last
name_CR9akaoOzcQ3q91lcsi1SQ: Your first
name_NKiFwmRvWpF46JsGCPlr1w:
Date_5uWcLPyi8rH2ylZPPrUkgA:
According to Assignment one I will be comparing two websites
and breakdown the strategies they used to inform, influence and
instruct their intended audiences. The first paragraph will
introduce the subject matter. The body of the paragraph will
explore each website. Third paragraph will analyze the purposes
of each website.
The subject I will be discussing is Coronary Artery Bypass
Graft or CABG. CABG is a surgical procedure that will help
improve blood flow to the heart. The technical website I choose
is the Merck Manual www.merckmanuals.com professional
version. The non-technical website I will be comparing it with
will be the University of California San Francisco department of
surgery. The website is surgery.ucsf.edu.
The primary audience for Merck Manual is health care
professionals such as doctors, nurses and surgical technicians.
Its aim is to reach professionals that have work with patients
with heart conditions and may require the surgery. Typically,
5. these are highly educated individuals such as doctors, surgical
technicians, and nurses. It tries to connect with its audience by
stating they have been around for a long time and that are
working to better the health of the world by developing
improved therapies for patients and making it less complicated
for professionals. The audience is 28 and above specifically
professionals that are in the cardiology field. It uses medical
terminology and assumes the audience know about the surgical
process of coronary artery bypass graft. These technical words
are “cardiac output”, “sternotomy”, “focal myocardial infraction
“ and global myocardial infraction”. It is designed for men and
women from different background that reside in the united
states and are fluent in the English language. The secondary
audiences for this website could be researchers, hospital
administrators, university students that are interested in the
companies that develop new therapies. Merck Manual makes a
persuasive case against CABG by making a case for new
therapies that are less invasive and cost effective. The website
does have one X ray illustrations a before and after CABG. The
website does not have designs, figures and pictures to support
their claims. The sentences are precise and right to the point. It
is designed for busy professionals that are familiar with the
subject matter. The website didn’t have any outside advertisers,
but they self-promote by linking their Facebook, Instagram and
other social media outlets.
The non- technical website I choose to compare with Merck
manual is University of California San Francisco school of
medicine department of surgery website. The audience for this
website is the general public that have little to no knowledge on
the subject matter. The secondary audience is the students that
are doing research and looking for some fact on that is looking
for information on the Coronary artery bypass grafting
procedure. The intended audience for this website male and
female patients with coronary artery disease that are looking for
answers on the procedure and possible risks and benefits of the
surgery. The age group the website is aiming for 65 and older
6. because those are mostly who are affected by heart disease.
The website has an elderly man illustration and a heart
illustration to demonstrate the procedure. It also has an ward for
Best hospital log right next to the text, easy to read bolded
letters. This is to make the audience feel at ease about choosing
the hospital for their procedure. The website also lists address,
phone number, and office hours of the clinic to make it
convenient for the audience to pick up the phone and make
appointment. The sentences are easy to read in lay man terms
and anyone with no medical knowledge will be able to
understand after reading the article. The first paragraph starts
with what exactly Coronary artery bypass grafting is and what
type of surgery it is and who might need it. The second
paragraph explains the disease process that will leading one to
needing a CABG. Under the title overview it claims by stating
CABG is most common type of open-heart surgery in the united
states. The website also has pictures of the clinical team
including transplant surgeons and cardiologist; this is to make
the audience familiar with the physicians and put human face
with names. They were no ads selling anything to the audience,
the website only was to persuade the target audience they are
the best place to get their surgery.
The website also gives inside the process before getting the
coronary artery bypass surgery by mentioning the tests, and
exams. The website avoids using any medical jargons and if
they do use a medical term such as Echocardiography they tell
the reader exactly what it entails and how to pronounce it. The
website has information on what to expect before and after
surgery. It also has information on what patients will expect
after going home and resuming normal lives after surgery.
Each website served its intended purpose and communicated
clear and concise information with its readers. The purpose of
Merck Manual website was for health care professionals that
were looking for new innovative ways to improve patient care.
The purpose of the University of California department surgery
website was to attract potential patients into the hospital.
8. General strategies for peer response attribution to an unknown
author
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Peer Feedback
Research in writing studies show evidence that
undergraduate student writers are not familiar
with providing adequate peer feedback, and instead rely upon
mildly pleasant comments as a
way to not offend a fellow student. At the same time,
getting feedback is a crucial step in
writing. Feedback provides insight from a detached reader,
who may provide overall direction
for the works-in-progress. Learning how to give feedback
requires practice, patience, good
reading skills, and sensitivity toward relations. But, students
need training with how to give
good peer feedback.
How to give not-so-great feedback:
Here’s a sample paragraph from a friend who has asked for
some feedback on the scope of the
paragraph. He’s concerned that the summary paragraph
does not provide enough detail to
conclude a section of the paper.
for working within electronic computer
Although computers & writing and digital rhetoric employ
different methodologies
benefits apply to classroom based writing practices along
with research and
scholarship, the ultimate quest provides insight into a
knowledge and information
exchange economy through and with digital technologies. As
9. people make
-mediated spaces, both fields form around a
sense of searching for how people and machines
interact with each other. While the
advancements with digital technologies, especially with
movement in the multi-
million dollar Internet of Things industry, the relationship of
not just human-to-
machine interaction, but also machine-to-machine interaction
will become
important for rhetoricians to address. Again, understanding the
function of rhetoric
in algorithmic processes is just one step in support of
positioning a rhetorical code
studies as central to rhetorical scholarship.
Comment [BE1]: I have no idea what this means!
Comment [BE2]: Long
Comment [BE3]: Who cares?
Comment [BE4]: This is a horrible paragraph.
The comments in the margins show a few traits: An
uncaring critique, ignorance, inadequate
explanation, and a final comment that’s not too pleasant to
read. What’s missing from the four
comments?
Here’s the same paragraph, with some alterations:
Although computers & writing and digital rhetoric employ
diferent methodologies
10. Comment [BE6]: Punctuation
Comment [BE5]: Spelling error
for working with electronic computer mediated spaces
both fields form a sense of
searching for people and machines interact with each other.
While the benefits
apply to classroom based writing practices along with
research and scholarship, the
ultimate quest provides insight into a knowledge and
information exchange
economy through and with digital technologies. As people mke
advancements with Comment [BE7]: Spelling error
digital technologies, especially with movement in the multi-
million dollar Internet of
Things industry, the relationship of not just human-to-mahine
interaction, but also Comment [BE8]: Spelling error
machine-to-machine interaction will become important for
rhetoricians to address.
11. Feedback developed by Estee Beck, PhD
General strategies for peer response attribution to an unknown
author
Again, understanding the function of rhetoric in algorithmic
processes is just one
step in support of positioning a rhetorical code
studies as central to rhetorical
scholarship.
Now, this isn’t necessarily “bad” feedback. Instead, it’s a
type of feedback called ‘local’ issues
(or the details like grammar, punctuation, usage, and
mechanics) or editing the paper. The
focus is on the small items, but not the overall larger
concerns the writer wanted the reader to
address.
Commenting and correct grammar, punctuation, usage, and
mechanics is not good peer review
12. feedback.
How to give good feedback:
Although computers & writing and digital rhetoric employ
different methodologies
for working within electronic computer-mediated spaces, both
fields form around a
sense of searching for how people and machines interact
with each other. While the
benefits apply to classroom based writing practices along
with research and
scholarship, the ultimate quest provides insight into a
knowledge and information
exchange economy through and with digital technologies. As
people make
advancements with digital technologies, especially with
movement in the multi-
million dollar Internet of Things industry, the relationship of
not just human
machine interaction, but also machine-to-machine interaction
will become
-to-
important for rhetoricians to address. Again, understanding the
function of rhetoric
in algorithmic processes is just one step in support of
positioning a rhetorical code
studies as central to rhetorical scholarship.
Notice three things about the comments in the margin: 1) There
are only two comments that
address larger issues of the paragraph that the writer needs
to focus on in revision; 2) There’s
positive language at the start of the first comment showing an
13. interest in maintaining the
relationship with the author, but also telling the author he
did something well in his writing;
and, 3) They are longer comments that ask questions and use
“hedge” language like ‘might’ and
‘consider’ to provide the author with the opportunity to consider
the feedback without a
directive of what to do.
Comment [BE9]: This is a great transitional sentence
from the previous paragraph. And, as a curious reader,
how do people and machines interact with each
other?
Would another sentence or two help readers with that
answer?
Comment [BE10]: This seems to be the key point in
this paragraph. Why do rhetoricians need to address this
topic? Might you consider adding a sentence why directly
afterward so readers have a rationale? I see this is
explained later in the paper, but maybe a hint of the
position will help give readers a sign about what is to
come.
14. Feedback developed by Estee Beck, PhD
General strategies for peer response attribution to an unknown
author
General Strategies for Peer Response
When providing feedback to peers, use of the below template
responses and fill in the blank
with your comment. You will find after a few times giving this
kind of feedback you will become
stronger with giving good feedback.
Types of responses writers want to hear:
Summarizing/Saying Back: Here is what I see this saying . .
.
Glossing: Here is a word or phrase that condenses this
paragraph or section as I understand it . .
15. Responding: As I read this paragraph, I . . .
Pointing: What seems most important here is . . . What
seems to be missing here is . . .
Extending: You could also apply this to . . . What would happen
if you . . .
Encouraging: This works well for me because . . .
Suggesting: If I were you, I might add . . . You
could move that paragraph . . .
Soliciting: Could you say more about this . . . ?
Connecting: In my experience, this . . . That’s like what x says
. . . I saw some research on this . .
Evaluating: This opening is focused and well-developed . .
.
Counterarguing: Another way to look at this is . . .
Questioning: Why do you say . . .
16. Responses writers don’t want to hear:
“I like it.” (nice but useless)
“I hate it.” (insulting and useless)
“It’s ok.” (boring and useless)
“I wouldn’t change a thing.” (boring and useless)
“How could you actually believe this crap?” (insulting, boring,
and useless)
“This has nothing to do with your project, but this reminds me
of when I . . .” (insulting, boring,
useless, and annoying)
