Lesson 41: Discovering Hidden Innovators, Revising an Essay, Part 1

This section positions peer feedback as a tool for targeted revision, not general comments. Students ground their thinking in the Performance Task success criteria, focusing on how feedback can improve clarity of ideas, strength of evidence, and consistency of academic tone. By the end of this section, students understand that effective feedback is specific, actionable, and tied to a clear revision goal.

Have students take out their homework drafts, Research Notes and peer-review materials.

Turn and Talk

Have students sit with a shoulder partner and place their draft and Performance Task handout in front of them.

Say these directions: Turn and talk to discuss your response to the question.

• Ask: What kind of feedback actually helps a writer improve a draft?

  • Helpful feedback is specific and points to a real place to make change in the writing based on the rubric and handout. It tells the writer what is working, what is unclear, and what change could make the claim, evidence, or tone stronger.

Connection to Today's Learning

• Say: Now that you are thinking like revisers, you are ready to learn how punctuation and sentence choices can make writing either clearer or more confusing.

This mini-lesson uses the Sentence Combining routine to help students add bonus information without crowding the main idea. Keep the examples simple and tied to details students already know from Hidden Figures so they can transfer the move into their informative research essays during peer review and revision.

Sentence Combining

Say these directions: We are going to combine these two short sentences into one clear sentence. Our goal is not to squeeze in every fact we know. Our goal is to keep the main idea easy to follow and add one helpful piece of bonus information with commas.

Display and read aloud these two short sentences built from details students have studied in Hidden Figures:

• Dorothy Vaughan became the West Area supervisor.

• Dorothy Vaughan was a skilled mathematician.

Teach: Sentence Combining with Nonrestrictive Elements

• Say: I start by asking myself which idea the sentence is really about. Here, the main point is that Dorothy Vaughan became the West Area supervisor. The second sentence gives background about Dorothy Vaughan, but I can still understand the main point without it, so that detail is bonus information. When writers add bonus information, they can tuck it into the sentence and set it off with commas so the reader does not lose the main idea. I can combine the sentences like this: Dorothy Vaughan, a skilled mathematician, became the West Area supervisor. Then I test it by reading the sentence without the middle part: Dorothy Vaughan became the West Area supervisor. Since that still makes sense, I know the middle part is nonrestrictive and the commas are helping the sentence stay clear. This is a useful move for your informative research essay because you can add an innovator’s role, background, or award without confusing your main point.

Say these directions: In your journal, combine these ideas into one sentence. Make the second idea bonus information. Then reread your sentence and check that the main point is still easy to follow.

Display and read aloud a second pair of sentences connected to Hidden Figures:

• Katherine Johnson checked John Glenn’s flight calculations.

• Katherine Johnson was a NASA mathematician.

• Ask: Where do the commas go, and why?

  • Katherine Johnson, a NASA mathematician, checked John Glenn’s flight calculations. The commas go around “a NASA mathematician” because it gives extra background about Katherine Johnson and is not the main point of the sentence.

Say: This is not just a grammar move. When you revise today, you will look for places where adding a nonrestrictive element can clarify who the innovator is or what they contributed without interrupting your main idea.

Connection to Today's Learning

• Say: You just practiced a sentence-level move that makes informative research writing more precise. Next, you will use that same idea during peer review as you help a partner notice where a sentence is clear and where it may need revision.

Part A: Peer Review and Feedback (W.6.5) (15 minutes)

This section shifts students into structured peer review using clear expectations and success criteria. Students practice reading like evaluators, identifying strengths and areas for improvement in both informative and argumentative writing. The focus is on providing feedback that is specific, actionable, and directly tied to how effectively the writing communicates ideas.

Peer Review

Say these directions: Read your partner’s informative research essay and argument paragraph. Use the Peer Review Form and the Performance Task rubric to identify one strength and give one specific recommendation for each section. Your recommendation should name what needs to improve and how your partner might revise it.

Say: Your feedback must connect directly to a success criterion from the Performance Task. Be prepared to explain which criterion your comment addresses and how your suggestion would improve your partner’s draft.

By the end of this section, students have provided targeted feedback that identifies both strengths and next steps. They understand how to use academic language to explain their feedback and how their suggestions can support meaningful revision.

Check for Understanding

Provide students with a confidence continuum (i.e., 1–5). As needed, model how to demonstrate a level of confidence using the continuum.

Part B: Revise for Clarity and Precision (W.6.5) (15 minutes)

This section supports students in applying peer feedback to revise their own writing. Students focus on making purposeful changes that improve clarity, strengthen evidence, and maintain a consistent academic tone. The emphasis is on revising for meaning rather than making surface-level edits.

Have students return to their own drafts with the peer feedback beside them.

Revisers do three things:

• choose feedback that most improves meaning and clarity

• revise ideas and sentences, not just surface errors

• explain how the revision strengthens the writing

Say these directions: Read your peer feedback and circle one or two recommendations you will use right away. Revise those places in your informative research essay and/or argument paragraph. Focus on the changes that most improve clarity, precision, and tone.

By the end of this section, students have revised at least one part of their draft using peer feedback and can explain how their revision improved the effectiveness of their writing.

Quick Write

This section provides time for students to reflect on how peer feedback influenced their revision decisions. Students evaluate the effectiveness of their changes and consider how those revisions improved clarity, precision, or tone in their writing.

Say these directions: In two to three sentences, explain one piece of peer feedback you decided to use and how your revision improved the draft. If you used commas around extra information, explain why that punctuation choice helped.

• The revision that most improved my writing was adding an explanation after one evidence sentence. I also used commas around a nonrestrictive phrase to make the sentence clearer. These changes helped because the reader can now follow my point more accurately and understand how the evidence supports it.

Optional Sentence Starter:

I used the feedback that ___. I revised ___ to ___. This improved my writing because ___.

Instruct students to reread their partner's feedback and circle the suggestions they still wish to incorporate in their next revision session. Then, have them take notes in their Journal on the following prompt:

• List the top two revisions you plan to make next.