영어 발표와 토론 · 논거와 반대 심문 토론

관심 선택 A · 익명 초안 평가 찬반 입론

Motion for a student editorial workshop: This workshop should use anonymous peer review for first drafts only. The proposal does not replace teacher assessment or make final grades anonymous. Affirmative opening, by Sol: “We support a limited trial because some writers worry about friendship pressure. In our fictional workshop notes, seven of eighteen reviewers in a named review round reported low pressure. In a later anonymous round with a new rubric, twelve of eighteen reported low pressure. These are reports of pressure, not writing scores. The two changes occurred together, so the figures cannot tell us which change mattered. Still, they give us a reason to investigate a careful trial.” Negative opening, by Ravi: “We share the goal of useful comments. Our concern is accountability. A hidden name might make a reviewer careless, and the teacher may need extra time to check comments. The notes do not report that time.” Sol replies, “A teacher could keep private reviewer codes while writers see no names. That would permit follow-up without revealing identities to peers.” The chair asks both teams to cite the self-created fictional workshop notes below their charts and avoid displaying real student drafts. Both teams prepare a list of missing information: comment quality, checking time, and whether writers understand the feedback. The audience will consider a trial design, not vote on which speaker is a better person.

도움말 · motion 논제; accountability 책임 추적 가능성; rubric 평가 기준표; peer 동료