Here are two lab exercises you are welcome to adapt to the needs of your own class.

Topic Proposal/Funding Source Statement Rough Draft Revision

1. Go to either Microsoft Word or Corel WordPerfect. Type in your topic proposal and funding source statement. Once everyone has done that, we will begin.
2. At the signal, everyone should move to the next terminal to the right. Read the proposal and funding source statement and then scroll down to the end. Enter your initials and comment critically (meaning good and bad criticism) on the proposal. When you are done, move to the right again and repeat the process until you have read everyone's work and are back at your own terminal. Don't skip from machine to machine out of order or the whole system will break down. Be patient and wait a minute. Conversely, don't hold up the line by writing a dissertation on the proposal--a few good sentences will do.
3. If you are having a hard time thinking of something helpful to say about the topic proposal, you may read and comment on other people's comments. If you think someone else's suggestion is good or bad, say so, referring to that person's initials.
4. Once we are all back "home," save the file on your disk under a recognizable name like "proposal comments."
5. Review all of the comments and use them to help you write your final draft of the Topic Proposal and Funding Source Statement.
6. Once you have received approval of your proposal and funding source statement from your instructor, you can start working on your Annotated Bibliography.

Directions for In-lab Peer Revision of Midterm Paper I
One of the main purposes of the midterm sales letter is to get your funding source interested in your idea. You can do that by being as clear and direct as possible in the way that you explain what you propose to do, and you can try and structure your argument so that the benefits to your funding source or its mission are clear. Today, along with the usual stylistic peer revision work, we will use the computer to highlight those places in the draft that may or may not appeal to the funding source. The focus of your attention today will be to remember that these letters are WRITTEN FOR AN AUDIENCE.

1. Insert your disk and pull up your rough draft.
2. Switch terminals with someone else and review each other's work.
3. Complete these steps:

   a. Write your name at the top of the peer revision sheet as reviewer, and the writer's name as writer.

   b. Read through the paper once; then start over, paying careful attention to the tone and the way the writer addresses the audience. If you see any passages where you think the writer needs to be more diplomatic in tone, highlight them in red. Highlight passages in green where the writer is doing a good job relating his or her concerns with the funding source's objectives or goals. [Notice the color symbolism!]

   c. If you see misspellings or awkward grammar, highlight those passages in yellow.

   d. Using the peer revision sheet from the coursepack, check off the yes and no answers at the top.

   e. At the end of the person's draft, answer the numbered questions from the handout. Alternatively, you could make comments in brackets directly in the writer's text as close as possible to the passage in question.

   f. When you are done commenting, please save the new file using the Save As function--don't cancel out the person's original draft. I suggest naming the file "Rdcomments.doc" or something like that.

4. If you have any bibliographic format questions which cannot be answered by the style guide in the coursepack, try doing a web search to find what you need to know using the online style guides in the Writing Program website or the Rutgers Library site.
5. Switch with your partner and go back to your original terminal. Discuss with each other the comments you have made, and provide suggestions as to how the draft can be made more appealing to the funding source.