Conference Priorities for a Draft Argument Essay
An eleventh-grade teacher has just collected draft argument essays from 28 students. The assignment asked them to propose a change to a local policy and support it with at least three sources. The rubric weights evidence and reasoning at 40 percent, organization at 25 percent, style at 20 percent, and conventions at 15 percent. One student, 'M,' has a sharply worded thesis and a clear organizational structure, but two statistics are unsourced, one cited source is a blog post that does not actually support the claim it is attached to, and the counterargument is dismissed in a single sentence. M has asked to meet for 15 minutes, saying, 'I just need you to fix my grammar.' Peer review begins in four days, and the final draft is due in eight. The teacher has 28 essays to respond to and cannot line-edit them all.
1. Decide which issues the teacher should address in feedback and which to omit, using the rubric weights and the purpose of the assignment. Justify the omissions.
Read the worked answer
Prioritize evidence and reasoning (40 percent) and the counterargument, which is part of argument quality, before style and conventions (20 and 15 percent). M's grammar request is understandable but would consume the conference with low-leverage edits. The two unsourced statistics are a credibility problem; the misused blog source is a reasoning problem because the evidence does not support the claim; the one-sentence counterargument is a missed opportunity to strengthen the argument. The teacher should give written feedback on those three issues and mark only one or two repeated convention patterns that interfere with readability, noting that a final proofread will follow. This is not neglect of grammar; it is sequencing. With four days until peer review and eight until the final draft, M can still revise the evidence base. Line-editing all 28 essays would also make the teacher's feedback unsustainable, so prioritizing is both instructional and practical.
2. Plan the 15-minute conference. Include specific questions the teacher should ask, what to model, and how to close so M leaves with a revision plan rather than teacher-edited prose.
Read the worked answer
Open with M's self-assessment: 'Which part of the rubric do you think is strongest, and which part would a skeptical reader challenge?' Then move to the two unsourced statistics and ask M to locate the source or replace the claim with a more modest one. For the blog source, read the relevant paragraph together and ask, 'What does this source actually establish, and what would you need it to establish?' Model the difference between a source that mentions the topic and one that supports the inference. For the counterargument, ask M to state the strongest objection and then write a concession and refutation in two sentences. Set two revision goals: source audit and counterargument. End with M restating the plan. The teacher should not take the paper and edit it; the goal is for M to leave with a process. If M insists on grammar, agree that the final 10 minutes of the next class will be a proofreading pass, not the conference.
3. Design a peer-review structure that addresses the same evidence problems for the whole class and explain how the teacher can verify that M actually revised rather than merely polished.
Read the worked answer
Structure peer review around a source audit, not grammar editing. Pairs exchange source lists and claim statements; the reader writes for each source, 'This source supports the claim because...' or 'This source does not support the claim because...' Then the writer revises one claim or one source. A second round uses a counterargument protocol: the reader states the strongest objection, and the writer practices a concession and refutation. The teacher circulates with the rubric and checks that students are discussing evidence, not commas. To check revision, the teacher collects a short revision memo in which M and other students name two changes and explain why. The teacher spot-checks the changed passages against the memo. This gives the teacher evidence of revision without line-editing every draft, and it gives M's peers practice with the same reasoning M needs.