Revising a Persuasive Essay Unit Under a Tight Calendar
Ms. Brennan's tenth-grade class is drafting persuasive essays. On the first draft, 19 of 27 students wrote a clear claim, but only 6 cited evidence from more than one source, and 14 used evidence that supported a different claim than the one they stated. Peer review produced mostly "good job" comments. Ms. Brennan has three class periods before the essay is due and a required district writing assessment in two weeks. She is considering (a) a full revision cycle with a new peer-review protocol, (b) one more draft with teacher written feedback only, or (c) moving on to the district assessment prep and treating this essay as formative.
1. Diagnose the pattern in the drafts. What does the mismatch between claims and evidence suggest about where in the writing process students need support?
Read the worked answer
The pattern is not primarily a drafting-fluency problem. Nineteen students can state a claim, so claim formulation is largely in place. The failure is in evidence selection and reasoning-specifically, students are not checking whether a piece of evidence actually supports the claim they made. Fourteen students using off-claim evidence suggests they are treating "find a quote" as the task rather than "find a quote that proves my point."
This locates the need at the planning/evidence-integration stage, not the sentence-level revision stage. The weak peer review ("good job") compounds it: peers are not evaluating the claim-evidence relationship either, so the class lacks a shared criterion for what good evidence use looks like.
Instructional implication: before another full draft, students need a concrete test they can apply-e.g., "Read your evidence aloud and ask: does this prove my claim, or does it prove something else?" and a model of what on-claim vs. off-claim evidence looks like for the same claim. Revision without that criterion would likely reproduce the same mismatch.
2. Given three periods, which of the three options is best supported, and how should Ms. Brennan structure the time?
Read the worked answer
Option (a)-a focused revision cycle with a new peer-review protocol-is best supported, but it must be targeted, not a generic "revise your essay" cycle.
Structure:
- Period 1: Mini-lesson on claim-evidence fit using two sample paragraphs (one on-claim, one off-claim) for the same claim; students sort evidence cards as "proves the claim" / "proves something else." Then students audit their own drafts, marking each piece of evidence as on- or off-claim.
- Period 2: Structured peer review with a protocol that requires a specific question ("Does this evidence prove the claim? Why or why not?") and a written response, replacing "good job." Students revise evidence selection.
- Period 3: Students integrate a second source where needed and write a short reflection on one change they made and why.
Why not (b): teacher-only feedback on one more draft gives students the diagnosis but not the practice in applying the criterion, and 27 essays of written feedback in three periods is not feasible at quality. Why not (c): the district assessment is two weeks out; the claim-evidence skill is precisely what such assessments reward, so abandoning it would waste the most teachable moment. Option (a) builds the skill and doubles as assessment prep.
3. What should Ms. Brennan do about the peer-review failure specifically, and how can she tell whether the new protocol is working?
Read the worked answer
The peer review failed because students had no criterion and no accountability structure-"good job" is what you write when you do not know what to look for. The fix is to make the review task concrete and observable:
- Give reviewers a single focused question tied to the lesson (claim-evidence fit), not a general "what do you think?"
- Require reviewers to quote the evidence and state whether it supports the claim, with a reason.
- Have the author respond in writing ("I will keep/change this evidence because..."), so the exchange produces a revision decision.
To tell whether it is working, she can compare drafts: count how many students revise off-claim evidence after review, and sample review comments for specificity (does the comment name the evidence and the claim?). A quick check is whether the proportion of students citing evidence from more than one source rises from 6/27 toward the class goal, and whether off-claim evidence drops from 14. If comments remain generic despite the protocol, the problem is modeling-she should demonstrate a review aloud before releasing students.