After writing a 6SA, you will review several 6SAs written by fellow students who have dealt with the same case. This should be organized as a double-blind peer review, meaning that you don’t know whose 6SAs you are reviewing, and your reviewers also don’t know they are reviewing your 6SA. This ensures that only the quality of the argument is relevant. Most likely, you will be working with a peer review software platform like peergrade to organize the submission of your 6SA and the allocation of reviews.
To conduct the peer review, you need to know and understand the grading criteria. The general principle is that each sentence is evaluated on its own against two criteria: a formal criterion and a quality criterion. The first criterion asks whether the sentence fulfills its formal function in the argument, as specified in the 6SA structure. The second criterion assesses the quality with which the sentence performs its function.
Your task is to decide whether the criteria are fulfilled. To aid your assessment, each criterion has a question that you can answer with yes or no. So for example for the introduction, can you answer “what is this argument about?” (1 point if the answer is yes) and “why should I read this?” assuming the role of the recipient in the case (1 additional point if the answer is yes). Note that the quality criterion can only be applied when the formal criterion is fulfilled. In other words, if the introduction is not an introduction, it is not useful to evaluate how effective it is in attracting the reader’s attention.
Before you score a sentence, check whether it fulfills the precondition (Sentence has 20 words or less and is clearly comprehensible). The word limit is simple, if the sentence has more than twenty words, it scores automatically zero points. If the language is vague, try to understand what the writer is trying to say as best as you can, write in your comments what you think the sentence is trying to say and proceed with scoring. If the sentence is incomprehensible to you, explain why you cannot comprehend the sentence and assign zero points.
To summarize, each sentence can be awarded 0, 1, or 2 points, and in total a 6SA can score 12 points.
| 0 points | None of the criteria fulfilled OR the precondition is not fulfilled |
| 1 point | Only the formal criterion is fulfilled |
| 2 points | Both the formal and the quality criterion is fulfilled |
The Grading Criteria
| Precondition | Sentence has 20 words or less and is clearly comprehensible. If this precondition is not fulfilled, the sentence scores zero points. |
| #1 Introduction | 1. The introduction clearly states the topic of the argument. Can you answer: What is the argument about?
2. The introduction attracts the reader’s attention in the context of the case. Can you answer, assuming the role of the recipient in the case: Why should I read this? |
| #2 Position | 1. The position fits the argument’s introduction (#1) Is this a position that applies to the decision situation established in the introduction (#1)?
2. The position explicitly identifies the actors and objects in the context of the case. Is it clear who is supposed to do what? |
| #3 Reason | 1. The reason explains why the position (#2) is a good choice. Do you understand why someone might take this position (#2)?
2. The reason is plausible in the context of the case. Do you accept this reason? If not, why not? |
| #4 Challenge | 1. The challenge articulates one point of criticism concerning the reason (#3). Does the anticipated criticism really apply to the supportive reason (#3)?
2. The challenge identifies a central weakness of the reason that is plausible in the context of the case. Do you accept this as a central point of criticism? If not, which other, more important challenge would you suggest? |
| #5 Rebuttal | 1. The rebuttal states a response that refutes or qualifies the challenge (#4). Does the rebuttal apply to the challenge (#4)?
2. The rebuttal is plausible in the context of the case. Do you accept the rebuttal as sufficient to dismiss the criticism (#4)? If not, why not? |
| #6 Conclusion | 1. Summarizes the argument on the basis of previously presented information (#1–#5). Does the conclusion avoid introducing new arguments or information?
2. The conclusion reinforces the position and emphasizes its relevance in the context of the case. Does the conclusion motivate you to follow the author’s advice? |
In addition to the grading criteria, there are three additional guidelines for grading 6SA:
- Each sentence is graded on its own. Mistakes or shortcomings in one sentence should not affect the grading of another sentence. For instance, if you do not accept the reason (#3), a well-written conclusion (#6) would still be awarded full marks, even if it reiterates that reason.
- The quality criterion (i.e. the second criterion) for the reason, the challenge, and the rebuttal requires those statements to be plausible in the context of the case. As a reviewer, you must judge whether a statement is plausible in the context of the case, i.e., whether you find it convincing when assuming the role of the recipient in the case. If a statement does not convince you, you need to explain why. A typical problem is that a statement is not based on a source that you accept as reliable. Sources that are typically acceptable are the case description, lecture material and readings, and other reputable and relevant publications.
- Note that the challenge (#4) must aim at the reason (#3), not at the position (#2). This strengthens the overall argument, because it forces the writer to explain why they support the position they chose rather than explaining why they disapprove of an alternative position.
Giving Constructive Feedback
Being able to give constructive feedback is an important learning objective in the 6SA exercise. The following video summarizes our approach:
Just as important scoring is providing a comment for each sentence that explains your score. This is extremely useful for the author, because it provides an explanation why a certain point was awarded or not. But it is also beneficial for yourself. The key insights of this exercise come from learning to pinpoint what exactly the problems are in a 6SA. If you are able to identify the right problems when reviewing someone’s 6SA, you will also be able to identify them in your own 6SA. If you can provide good reviews to others, you can also take a critical perspective towards your own writing.
Reviews should be written constructively and in a polite tone. Don’t underestimate how harsh negative feedback can sound in an anonymous review. At the same time, the reviews need to be honest. No one benefits from feedback that glosses over the problems. On some software platforms (e.g. Peergrade), authors can rate the feedback they get, incentivizing reviewers to provide high quality feedback. But apart from that, giving good feedback is a really valuable skill in many situations, and you can use exercise to practice how to do it well.
Finding a way to describe shortcomings without sounding harsh may take some time. Below are some tips what you might include in a peer review:
- Assume you are collaborating with the author on this text
- Explain in some detail why you don’t award a point
- Seek clarification on unclear points in order to show how the author might be misunderstood
- Make suggestions for improvement wherever you feel you can help
- End your review on an encouraging note
As a rule of thumb, aim to spend about 20 minutes on each review.
Assignment
Evaluate your own 6SA (from the previous assignment) against the grading criteria.
