Redrafting and Feedback
Year 9 HEAP • Persuasion • Redrafting
Redrafting is not proofreading. It is a series of decisions about what the campaign needs to do better. Separating the passes prevents the common mistake of polishing sentences while the argument is still weak.
Three passes, three questions
| Pass | Question | What to look for | What to ignore for now |
|---|
| Argument | Would a reasonable person be persuaded? | Claim, reasons, evidence, warrant, objection, response, qualifier. | Word choice and visual polish. |
| Clarity | Can the audience understand it once? | Order, sentence length, jargon, ambiguity, pronoun reference. | Whether the font is the perfect shade. |
| Effect | Does it land for this audience in this medium? | Tone, pace, emphasis, image, sound, call to action. | Adding new evidence unless it is essential. |
Pass one: argument
- Underline the claim. If you cannot find one sentence that states it, write one.
- Number each reason. If two reasons say the same thing, merge them.
- Draw a line from each reason to its evidence. If the line has no evidence, add it or cut the reason.
- Write the warrant in your own words. If it sounds obvious, check whether it is actually assumed rather than argued.
- State the strongest objection in one sentence. If your draft does not answer it, add a response.
- Add a qualifier. Say what the campaign will not fix.
Pass two: clarity
| Problem | Before | After |
|---|
| Buried claim | "There are many factors to consider when we think about the issue of waste in schools today." | "Our canteen throws away edible food every lunchtime." |
| Abstract noun stack | "The implementation of portion-size optimisation requires stakeholder consultation." | "Before changing portion sizes, ask students and canteen staff what will work." |
| Unclear pronoun | "Students should tell them what they want." | "Students should tell the canteen manager what they want." |
| Overlong sentence | Three ideas joined by commas and "and". | Three short sentences, one idea each. |
| Unnecessary hedge | "It could possibly be argued that maybe..." | "The evidence suggests..." |
Pass three: effect
- Read the draft aloud. Mark where you run out of breath or lose emphasis.
- Check the first five seconds. Does the audience know why they should keep reading or watching?
- Check the last five seconds. Is the action unmistakable?
- Remove one element and see whether the message improves. If it does, leave it out.
- Test the draft in greyscale, on a phone and from the intended distance.
- Ask someone outside the project to explain the message back to you.
Feedback that changes the draft
| Feedback | Problem | Better version |
|---|
| "It's good." | No information about what works. | "The contrast in the headline made me stop. I did not understand what you wanted me to do." |
| "I don't like it." | Preference without a reason. | "The photograph made me think the campaign was blaming students. Is that intended?" |
| "Add more detail." | Unclear direction. | "I need one sentence explaining how the trial would be paid for." |
| "Make it pop." | No actionable change. | "The call to action is the same size as the body text. Make it the second thing I see." |
| "You should use pathos." | Names a technique instead of describing an effect. | "I felt distant from the issue. A short, consented quotation from a student might make it concrete." |
Peer feedback protocol
| Step | Time | What happens |
|---|
| Read or view silently | 2 minutes | No comments while reading. |
| Say back the message | 1 minute | The reader explains what they think the campaign asks them to think, feel and do. |
| Name one strength | 1 minute | Specific, with the exact words or element. |
| Ask one question | 2 minutes | A genuine question, not a disguised instruction. |
| Offer one change | 1 minute | One change that would make the biggest difference. |
| Respond | 1 minute | The maker says what they will keep, change or cut, and why. |
Before and after
| Draft | Problem | Revision | Improvement |
|---|
| "We should reduce waste because it is bad for the environment and everyone should care." | Circular reason; no evidence; no specific action. | "The canteen should trial smaller hot-food portions for two weeks because a lunchtime audit found most edible waste came from meals students could not finish." | The claim is specific, the reason is evidence-based and the trial is feasible. |
| A poster with a photograph of a bin, a paragraph of text and no logo. | The image creates disgust but no action; the text is unreadable at a distance. | A close photograph of a half-eaten meal, a headline, three short points and a named action at the canteen. | The audience can read the message in five seconds and knows what to do. |
| A speech that lists twelve statistics in a row. | The audience cannot remember or interpret the numbers. | Two statistics, each explained, plus one concrete example and a response to the cost objection. | The evidence supports the argument instead of replacing it. |
Revision log
| Feedback received | What I decided | Why | Change made |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Not every comment requires a change. Record the ones you decline and explain why. That is a sign of judgement, not stubbornness.
Common errors
- Editing before arguing. Fixing commas while the claim is still vague.
- Adding instead of cutting. Making a draft longer when it needs to be clearer.
- Feedback as applause. Asking only whether people liked it.
- Changing everything at once. Then not knowing which change helped.
- Ignoring the audience test. Trusting the maker's intention over the audience's interpretation.
When the draft is stronger, prepare to present and test it.