my name is Esteban tankou below are instructions for assignment: For this workshop, you should first read the “Introductions for Academic Essays" handout from the Miami University (OH) Howe Center f

my name is Esteban tankou

below are instructions for assignment:

For this workshop, you should first read the “Introductions for Academic Essays" handout from the Miami University (OH) Howe Center for Writing Excellence. In addition to the three bullet points in the handout on “What Should an Introduction Do,” strategies for introductions include:

• Define an audience—who will benefit from reading the text
• Establish common ground—knowledge and values the audience has in common
• Provide background information—information the audience will need to understand the text: state context, define key terms, explain key concepts, refer to key prior research
• Establish scope—the specific aspect of a broader question or area that the paper covers
• Provide a map—a list of the main points or sections in the paper in order

Read Alvarez’s introduction. As you read her introduction, use the Writing Checklist (in your assignment sheet) to identify the strategies Alvarez uses. Then, use the comment feature in Word to analyze Alvarez’s introduction.

In your primary post, briefly state which specific introduction strategies Alvarez uses and how effective her writing is in her introduction. Keep in mind that Alvarez may have used the same strategy in multiple paragraphs. If you find sentences that employ a strategy not listed in the Writing Checklist, comment on those sentences by identifying what Alvarez is doing and why she did it. Your Primary Post is due Thursday, February 15th at 11:59 PM. 

In your Value-Added Comments, respond to your teammates using some best practices for peer review (below) and avoid the list of common mistakes during peer review (below). Offer your teammates some commentary on their analysis of Alvarez's introduction. Your Value-Added Comments are due by 2/18 at 11:59 pm.

Common Mistakes in Peer Review: 

1. Praise: Too often peer review ends up being a series of statements of what the student liked about the paper. The problem with this strategy is that it lacks effort on the part of the reviewer to think carefully about their partner’s paper and it does not help the writer to improve.
2. Directions: Too often “change this” is given as a command rather than as a method of helping the writer to learn how to detect and correct problems on their own.
3. Vague Descriptions: Descriptions can give an overall impression of a piece of writing, but they tend to be too vague. Statements like “Your introduction is weak” do not give writers a clear understanding of WHY and do not provide writers with suggestions for revision.

Best Practices for Peer Review 

1. Detection: When reviewers explain what made them stop to comment on a passage and what reaction they had when reading it they better understand problems from the point of view of readers.
2. Reflection: When reviewers describe what they think the writer was trying to do in a passage, it makes it apparent to writers whether their meaning is being communicated. This move helps writers see what is actually on the page rather than what they intended to put there.
3. Tentative Diagnosis: When reviewers explain what might be causing the problem or why other readers might have trouble with the same passage, writers gain a clearer sense of what they need to fix to communicate more effectively.
4. Suggestion: When reviewers come up with one or more ways to fix the problem, stated as opinions rather than commands, they acknowledge that there is more than one good way to make an argument. This move gives writers ideas for how to fix the problem without having their text appropriated by the reviewer. Suggestions are particularly helpful when they include a reason for the suggestion.

NOTE: Please use the dialogue box to submit your posts. It is easier to engage each other if you do not have to open files. Type your posts in a word document and then copy and paste them.