Take each of the following roles in turn:

1. Writer--first gives a little background on the research, then just reads his/her proposal (Don't explain and don't apologize; simply read your proposal aloud. The urge to explain is a sign that something is missing. Make a note on your paper when you feel this).

Make notes of listeners' reactions; use later to clarify and revise the proposal. Listeners' questions can give you ideas for making your proposal communicate better.

2. Listeners--try to get a clear image of the research--what the hypotheses or questions are, how the data will be collected and how the data will be analyzed. What will subjects experience while participating in the research?

Listeners write notes to themselves on their copies as the writer reads. Once the writer finishes, go back to your notes and questions and get additional information, etc. Don't interrupt the writer.

Be prepared to ask lots of questions to get a very clear image of the research. Check out your assumptions about what will occur in the research. You have the writer's permission to ask questions.

Be prepared to make constructive suggestions that help to refine and extend the proposal. If you can, give the writer a new view that she or he hasn't thought of.

Avoid:

1. comments on grammar, style, spelling, etc. Remember, this is not a final draft. And the point of all those rules on style & grammar is communication, so concentrate on whether the proposal communicates.

2. Here are some words and phrases you are not allowed to use: "that was good" "fine" "nice" "lousy" "neat" "great". Concentrate on understanding the research. You are not being asked to make value judgments.

Questions appropriate to any section:

How is fact A connected to fact B?

Can you tell me more about this sentence? paragraph?

What would happen if you elaborated on this point? What would happen if you omitted or reduced the discussion of this point? Could this information go someplace else?

I wanted to reread this sentence, because by the time I got to the end, I'd forgotten the beginning.

Here I thought you meant X (or I thought you were going to say X next), but later I realized that I was wrong.

I got confused here.

I need more information about X so I can see where you're going with that.

I didn't understand what this term referred to until later.

Questions for the Method Section:

Can I state the hypotheses being tested? Can I state the IV, DV?

On what steps of the procedure do I need more information?

What are some potential confounds?

How can the effects of extraneous variables be further reduced?

What are the operational definitions of concepts and variables?

How can subsections be reorganized to be less redundant, clearer?

Why is X being done? Why is X not being done?

Questions for the Results Section:

What hypotheses are being tested? Are the right means being compared?

How can graphs and tables be made clearer?

What statistical tests will be used?

Do the imaginary data given follow naturally from the hypotheses? How else might the data come out?

Questions for the Introduction:

What is the topic of this research? What is the research problem?

Does the introduction give sufficient background to "set up" the problem or question or hypothesis? What additional information do you need to get the gist of the research topic?

How can the "funnel shape" of the Introduction be improved?

How will the proposed research help solve the question or problem? How does it add to what is known?

Is appropriate literature cited? How do the citations "tie in" to this research? What is the most important citation? The least important?

Can you find a concrete statement of the research question or hypothesis?

Are technical terms or abbreviations explained?

Can you find the project "stated in a nutshell" at end of the introduction?

Questions for Ethical Considerations:

What procedures are carried out in order to meet ethical guidelines?

If there is a violation of ethical principles, which ones? What is being done to minimize the violation? Is the violation necessary?

Listener: Your job is not to be critical, but to help the reader improve the annotations. You do this by giving your reactions to the annotation so that the writer can determine whether the annotation is evoking the intended ideas. You want to be WITH the writer, not AGAINST her. Don't drag your feet--HELP PEDAL!

Try this: Instead of playing the role of teacher in giving comments, play the role of student. Pretend the writing was by a professional, and published in the professional literature. You have been assigned to read and comprehend it for a class. What questions would you ask the instructor (or the author) about the research? Where do you want more information? Where are you puzzled? Confused?

Writer: Your job is to attend carefully to listener reactions and take extensive notes. Take listener reactions and suggestions not as commandments for revision but as a window onto the listeners' interpretation of your annotation. You can decide later what revisions to make in response to listener reactions and suggestions.