Pass 1 CONTENT peer revision — original argument (14 criteria)

Re-read your argument draft once. Self-flag: which 2-3 Pass 1 criteria do you most need partner feedback on? Mark in margin.

• Affirm: self-knowledge of weak spots is half of revision
• Note: Pass 1 is content-only — discipline required

Today we run Pass 1 CONTENT peer revision on the original argument — the major spring writing piece. MG-16 Pass 1 has 14 criteria. The discipline: stay ONLY on content. Resist commenting on commas, on rhetorical devices not applied, on spelling. Those are Pass 2 and Pass 3. Pass 1 questions: Is the CLAIM arguable? Is the EVIDENCE credible? Does the WARRANT explain HOW evidence supports claim? Is the AUDIENCE considered? Is the COUNTERCLAIM addressed? Does the STRUCTURE follow MPO? Does the INTRO hook? Does the CONCLUSION synthesize? Are the DEVICES accurately applied for purpose? Is evidence EMBEDDED with citation? Is SUMMARY avoided? Is THESIS clear? Are TRANSITIONS present? Is STYLE formal? Use the SBAR card: SPECIFIC (name the paragraph or sentence), BASED-ON-EVIDENCE (quote the line), ACTIONABLE (suggest a move), RESPECTFUL (assume writer's good intent). Watch MG-21 again — the first 90 seconds — for the discipline model.

• Specific paragraph + quoted line + actionable move + respectful frame. That's a Pass 1 SBAR comment.

  model 'In body paragraph 2, sentence 3 — you wrote: "Uniforms are good because they look nice." Try replacing with credible evidence — perhaps the Long Beach study from fall, or a quote from an education researcher. The current evidence is opinion; warrant would be stronger with cited data.'

  prompt Sample SBAR Pass 1 comment.
• Pass 1 discipline: substance only. Save mechanics for Pass 3.

  model 'You have a comma splice in paragraph 2.' (That's Pass 3 mechanics.) 'You could use an anaphora here.' (That's Pass 2 sentence-level, IF the device-pass is in scope.) 'Your spelling is off in paragraph 3.' (That's Pass 3.)

  prompt What's NOT a Pass 1 comment?
• Aim partner feedback at the most-often-weak criteria. Don't waste comments on what's already strong.

  model (7) Warrant collapses into restatement. (8) Counterclaim addressed but not refuted. (12) Evidence not embedded with citation. (14) Style drifts informal in body 2.

  prompt Look at MG-16 Pass 1. Which criteria are most often weak in G6 arguments?

• Cold Call: name 3 Pass 1 criteria
• Cold Call: what's NOT a Pass 1 comment?
• Thumbs: I can stay on Pass 1 discipline (up) / I might drift to commas (down — partner watches)

M-6-S-WR-16-A Video Physical / non-image

MG-21 video first 90 seconds replayed. Partner conducts Pass 1 using MG-16. Caption track on. Highlight box tracks which criteria are checked.

MG-16 Chart

3-pass peer-revision protocol anchor: 3-band stacked card. PASS 1 — CONTENT (purple, 14 criteria — extends fall MG-21): claim arguable / evidence credible / warrant explained / audience considered / counterclaim addressed / structure follows MPO / introduction hooks / conclusion synthesizes. PASS 2 — SENTENCE-LEVEL (blue, 10 criteria — NEW at G6-spring): parallelism applied / anaphora applied / 1 more device applied / active voice default / passive used only deliberately / sentence rhythm varied (short-long mix) / tricolon present somewhere / sentence openings varied / no unnecessary 'there is/are' / no 'be-verb' overuse. PASS 3 — MECHANICS (green, 12 criteria — NEW at G6-spring): pronoun case correct / intensive pronouns correct / pronoun consistency / vague-pronoun antecedents clear / semicolon used correctly (at least once) / colon used correctly (at least once) / commas for nonrestrictive / commas in compound sentences / spelling clean / capitalization clean / quotation punctuation / italics for titles. Bottom rule: 'ONE PASS AT A TIME. Doing all three at once is worse than doing each well.' Print-ready 11x17.

MG-21 Video Physical / non-image

5:00 model of a Grade-6 three-pass peer-revision conference. 0:00-1:30 PASS 1 CONTENT — partner reads the draft cold, names whether the claim is arguable, whether the evidence supports it, whether the warrant explains. Quotes a line. Uses MG-16 Pass 1 checklist. 1:30-3:00 PASS 2 SENTENCE — partner re-reads looking for rhetorical devices applied. Highlights anaphora in red, parallelism in blue. Suggests one more device to add. Uses MG-16 Pass 2 checklist. 3:00-5:00 PASS 3 MECHANICS — partner re-reads with proofing eye. Catches a pronoun-case slip, a missing semicolon between two independent clauses, and a vague pronoun. Uses MG-16 Pass 3 checklist. Closing 30 seconds: writer summarizes top revision target from EACH pass. Real-feel middle-school classroom.

• Conduct Pass 1 CONTENT peer review with partner. Use MG-16 Pass 1 check-off sheet. Apply SBAR for each comment. Stay ONLY on content. 15 minutes per partner = 30 minutes total.

  scaffold MG-16 Pass 1 sheet, SBAR card, partner-assignment list
• After partner-review: 5 minutes to summarize TOP 2 Pass 1 revisions for tonight's homework.

  scaffold Revision-target summary card

• Submit your Pass 1 check-off sheet AND your top-2-revisions summary.

• Restate: Pass 1 = content only; 14 criteria; SBAR discipline
• Preview tomorrow's Pass 2 SENTENCE-LEVEL (10 criteria — rhetorical devices applied)

• Revise argument based on top-2 Pass 1 revisions. Bring revised draft tomorrow for Pass 2 SENTENCE.