Lesson Report:
Title
In-class Drafting and Structured Peer Review: Building a Better Future Essay
This session combined extended drafting time with targeted conferencing and a structured peer-review protocol. Objectives were to help students take a clear argumentative stance on the prompt, integrate textual evidence effectively (from the course reader/anthology), and prepare drafts for completion and revision in the next class.
Attendance
– Number of absences mentioned: 0
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Opening, agenda choice, and class norms
– Quick vote on how to use the period: extended silent writing time vs. moving directly to peer review. The class was roughly split, but the instructor prioritized a 30-minute focused writing block to support students who needed more drafting time.
– Classroom management/logistics:
– Essays were handed back for in-class work.
– Phones were collected and placed on a designated table to reduce distraction.
– Time window set for writing until approximately 1:40.
– Reminder: all work for this essay must be done in class; essays cannot leave the room and were recollected at the end.
2) Assignment parameters clarified
– Prompt posted (as written): “If you’re trying to build a better future for your community, is it more important that each person has a good character (values, morals, principles) or that each person believes in the same vision for the community’s future?â€�
– Sources:
– Students may use any two texts from the course reader/anthology (poems or prose), including texts not yet discussed in class.
– Not required to use every text; select two that best support the position.
– Evidence requirements:
– Minimum: at least one quote from each of the two selected texts.
– Challenge: try to include a quote for each substantive claim within a body paragraph (to prepare for exam-style writing).
– Length/formatting clarifications surfaced informally:
– Students referenced being at ~2.5 pages; there was confusion about “each side is one page.â€� Final length standard not formally restated this period.
3) Individual conferencing during the writing block (illustrative feedback themes)
– Thesis and stance:
– Avoid the “discuss both sidesâ€� trap (e.g., treating a binary as merely definitional). The essay must take a clear position in response to the prompt.
– Three stance options were outlined: A (choose one side), B (choose the other side), or C (argue that both are inseparable). Option C is explicitly more difficult and requires strong structure and at least two distinct reasons.
– Paragraph focus and argumentation:
– Do not open body paragraphs with a quotation; begin with a topic sentence that states the paragraph’s claim.
– Ensure each body paragraph argues in support of the thesis (not merely defining terms or summarizing texts).
– Connect every example and quote back to the central question (e.g., why the chosen side is more important for building a better future).
– Evidence integration:
– Use quotations as supporting details tied to a claim; avoid dropping quotes without analysis.
– When invoking examples (e.g., figures “looking back on achievementsâ€�), explicitly tie the example to the claim (e.g., why “destination/achievementâ€� or “journey/processâ€� matters to the essay’s position).
– Conceptual clarity examples addressed:
– Clarify how “teaching the younger generationâ€� functions as part of the process (journey) rather than just an outcome (destination), if that is the claim.
– Define “successâ€� in a manner aligned with the chosen side, and maintain that framing consistently.
– Writing quality:
– Several drafts showed strong prose and ideas but were unfocused due to lack of a declared position; recommendation: revise the introduction with a clear thesis up front.
4) Transition to and conduct of peer review
– Pairing: students formed pairs; groups of three permitted if needed. Requested low voice levels to accommodate remaining writers.
– First step: Read partner’s draft and annotate at least two specific strengths (e.g., clarity of structure, effective evidence, compelling style).
– Second step: Deliver compliments verbally to partner.
– Third step: While receiving feedback, each writer prepares two questions for their reviewer (e.g., Was the argument clear? Where did you lose me? What needs elaboration?).
– Purpose: reinforce argument clarity, identify gaps in explanation, and encourage specificity in praise and critique.
5) Closing logistics and content extension
– Essays collected from all students at the end; work will continue on Monday in class.
– The instructor offered to provide additional feedback over the weekend on drafts sent to them.
– Brief post-class content clarification (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus):
– Sisyphus’s punishment is imposed; his “choiceâ€� is to find meaning/happiness in struggle (“We must imagine Sisyphus happyâ€�).
– This idea can inform arguments about process, meaning-making, and how individuals relate to ongoing effort—potentially relevant to students’ essays depending on stance and text selection.
Actionable Items
Urgent (before Monday)
– Clarify and announce final length/format: exact page or word count; single/double spacing; whether “each side is one pageâ€� applies; citation style for quotes.
– Reiterate evidence standard in writing: at least one quote per chosen text; aim for a quote per claim; no paragraph openings with quotes.
– Confirm policy alignment: students were told “all work must be done in class,â€� yet weekend feedback on sent drafts was offered—clarify what is allowed to be sent (e.g., read-only for feedback vs. no out-of-class drafting).
– Prepare structured peer-review checklist/handout to standardize: thesis clarity, topic sentences, quote integration, explanation-claim links.
High priority (next session)
– Mini-lesson: crafting decisive thesis statements for binary prompts and outlining “Option Câ€� (both sides) with two distinct reasons.
– Quick modeling: revising a body paragraph to lead with a claim, integrate a quote, and tie back to the thesis.
– Pre-assign or record peer pairs to streamline review and ensure all students receive feedback.
Ongoing
– Source guidance: remind students they may choose any two texts from the reader/anthology; encourage alignment between chosen texts and the selected stance.
– Classroom management: continue phone collection at the start of drafting/peer review; consider seating adjustments for talkative groups during writing blocks.
– Thematic connection: if students cite Camus or similar texts, prompt explicit links between the textual idea (e.g., finding meaning in struggle) and the essay’s central claim about building a better future.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
Because the instructor explicitly said “you guys can’t leave the rooms with these thingsâ€� and “All work has to be done in class. We’ll finish it on Monday,â€� no out-of-class tasks or deadlines were assigned.