Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

I began to answer my research questions by finding a source for each of them. My evaluation of the sources can be found here in Google Docs.

Note:  Sources have since been changed since this blog post.

astronomy_blog "Research" 3/27/12 via flickr. Attribution  Non-Commercial Share-Alike 2.0 Generic

Reflection:

Boy did I learn a lot. Well first of all, due to the combination of comments left on this post and reviewing Hunter and Grace's Rhetorical Situations Evaluations, I have discovered that I definitely misunderstood the assignment. It was late, I made bad choices, one of which was multiple pudding snack packs and the other which was misreading the instructions and finding too complex sources. When the instructions said an article "of significant complexity" I took that to mean "very long and technical. I also thought that "short blurbs online" were the same as short articles online, but from the discussion in class and my peers' posts I realize what I'm actually supposed to find. As a result I will
find new articles that, get this, actually meet the requirements! My mistake.

So that was one of the main things I learned from Hunter and Grace's posts. But they also helped me to realize what a good article looked like. I feel like my analysis of my first sources wasn't too bad, and I think I was fairly detailed, but obviously when I find my new sources I will be redoing the analysis. But Hunter seemed to have a very nice direct source, even though it was shorter, while Grace had very passionate sources that I feel will be easier for her to analyze.



Note:

After going to office hours I have been instructed to just keep on moving, and so I found the new sources which I will be using going forward.

Developing a Research Question

Let the games begin. Or rather continue. In this post I will be exploring some possible research questions for Project Two.


1. Can animals significantly understand human language?

Koko the gorilla is a perfect example of an animal that seems to understand human language. Koko is a female lowland gorilla who has learned a number of signs in sign language. She was even said to have signed "sad" after her "friend" actor Robin William's death. And everyone knows that when you say "no" or "good girl" to a dog, they seem to understand what you mean. But are they really understanding these words, or are they just learning patterns and tones?

I would be very interested in researching more about this topic, especially since my intended career is with gorillas. I always feel like a bit of a novice when people want to know more about gorilla communication, so researching this topic would give me answers to some questions I have always wanted to know about animal-human communication.

Rifkin Adam "Koko the gorilla with her birthday gift, a kitten. Using sign language, she named it 'All Ball'" 2/9/15 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

2. Do animals have a form of non-verbal inter-species communication?

Animals certainly seem to understand each other. Whether or not this understanding comes from physical signs, and to what extent is the question.  Researchers have found that there are patterns in the sounds that they make, but whether or not they are able to have a system of non-verbal accepted communication is an ongoing debate.

This subject would interest me because of my interest in animals and their communication. To me, I find it hard to believe that animals would NOT have a form of non-verbal communication. However it would be interesting and beneficial for me to have a more well rounded and researched knowledge of the topic.



3. Do the positives of ecotourism outweigh the negatives?

Ecotourism is the touring of often endangered lands to promote help the area's economy. The money from this ecotourism can go to protecting these areas or rehabilitating them. However obviously there is a risk of harming the endangered land even more with all of the human activity that comes from ecotourism. Would it be better to section off the lands and ban human access to preserve them, or is the money and human pleasure that comes from ecotourism worth the additional risk?

I would be interested in researching this topic because as a future zoologist, the conservation of the animals and their natural habitats would be very important. I would even possibly be studying them in their natural environment, and so it would benefit me to know it my being there would actually be harmful. I started to learn about this subject in Environmental Science last year, and I thought the struggle between human aesthetic desires and conservation was an interesting one.

Developing a Research Question

Let the games begin. Or rather continue. In this post I will be exploring some possible research questions for Project Two.


1. Can animals significantly understand human language?

Koko the gorilla is a perfect example of an animal that seems to understand human language. Koko is a female lowland gorilla who has learned a number of signs in sign language. She was even said to have signed "sad" after her "friend" actor Robin William's death. And everyone knows that when you say "no" or "good girl" to a dog, they seem to understand what you mean. But are they really understanding these words, or are they just learning patterns and tones?

I would be very interested in researching more about this topic, especially since my intended career is with gorillas. I always feel like a bit of a novice when people want to know more about gorilla communication, so researching this topic would give me answers to some questions I have always wanted to know about animal-human communication.

Rifkin Adam "Koko the gorilla with her birthday gift, a kitten. Using sign language, she named it 'All Ball'" 2/9/15 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

2. Do animals have a form of verbal inter-species communication?

Animals certainly seem to understand each other. Whether or not this understanding comes from physical signs or verbal messages is the question. There has been study into whale and dolphin communication, and whether or not the sounds they make are arbitrary or meaningful. Researchers have found that there are patterns in the sounds that they make, but whether or not they are able to actually communicate verbally is an ongoing debate.

This subject would interest me because of my interest in animals and their communication. To me, I find it hard to believe that animals would NOT have a form of verbal communication. However it would be interesting and beneficial for me to have a more well rounded and researched knowledge of the topic.



3. Do the positives of ecotourism outweigh the negatives?

Ecotourism is the touring of often endangered lands to promote help the area's economy. The money from this ecotourism can go to protecting these areas or rehabilitating them. However obviously there is a risk of harming the endangered land even more with all of the human activity that comes from ecotourism. Would it be better to section off the lands and ban human access to preserve them, or is the money and human pleasure that comes from ecotourism worth the additional risk?

I would be interested in researching this topic because as a future zoologist, the conservation of the animals and their natural habitats would be very important. I would even possibly be studying them in their natural environment, and so it would benefit me to know it my being there would actually be harmful. I started to learn about this subject in Environmental Science last year, and I thought the struggle between human aesthetic desires and conservation was an interesting one.

Reflection on Project 1

What an emotional roller coaster project one was! There were victories, struggles, and many new experiences along the way, all of which I will be discussing in this post.

Pircher, Florian "Emoji Faces Tongue Stick Out Tongue Funny" 3/26/15 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

The main challenge I had to deal with with this project was making sure it was appropriate for the QRG audience. Being so used to writing essays, I kept almost lapsing back into over-formality. I had to review several times to make sure that I was being conversational. Also, I had a hard time keeping it as short as it needs to be. But through several revisions I was able to eliminate a lot of the wordiness and unnecessary detail that was making it too lengthy. 

I was pretty proud of how successful I was with being unbiased. I feel like finding a lot of sources from each side of the argument really made it easier to show all sides of the story, I also feel like I was able to adapt to the format of the QRG fairly well. I really liked using all the white space and pictures and headings to illustrate my point. 

I found that the ethical argument was very useful for both sides of my controversy. I was able to use the ethical opinions of the protesters as well as the ethical opinions of the researchers in my evaluation, and I think that really helped answer the "so what?" question. I also liked the way I used the design of the work (headings and pictures) to illustrate my point. Using the QRG design was super useful to making my point (which makes sense since that's what the genre calls for). I also found that the strategy of heavy revision was useful in this project. Since it was so picked over, the final piece turned out pretty effective in my opinion. I also really liked using scientific articles in my project, and found it difficult to use the social media posts since I find them less credible.  

This project was similar to my past school writing experiences in a few ways. For one, I am used to having one big project that accumulates over several weeks into a large chunk of my grade. Also, peer revision was a part of this project as it was in my past experiences. I was super happy about this since I think that it always helps to have someone else look at a piece of writing before final submission. 

The main difference between this project and high school projects for me was the amount of planning and revising. In my other school writing experiences, typically I made an outline, one rough draft, revised maybe twice, boom done. In this project we planned EXTENSIVELY before starting to write, which made the draft WAY easier to put together when we got to that stage. Also as I previously mentioned, I never realized that there were so many ways to revise a piece of writing. We evaluated it in SO many ways that it made me feel really confident about my final work. 

I think I learned some valuable skills and techniques in this project that I could utilize in the future. For example, headings. I LOVE headings. I think they make life way easier, and in this project I learned how helpful they are in organizing information. Also, I had always been a little nervous to use pictures in my writing. But seeing how effective they were in this project makes me feel like in the future they could be really useful. But the most useful skill I practiced in this project would have to be planning and revision. I will definitely be taking more time to plan and organize my sources and information in future writing, because it was so incredibly helpful. Also revising so many different ways was really helpful in that it made me feel like I had covered all of the issues I could have in my writing (although that probably isn't true).

While this project was a pain in the butt, it was actually really enlightening. Throughout the long and tedious journey, I learned more about writing (more specifically MY writing) than in any high school writing assignment. 



Reflection on the Reflection:

I found that my fellow students Chris and Allison had similar thoughts as me on Project One. Overall it seems like my classmates and I had a lot in common when it came to the problems and victories that we had in Project One. Hopefully we are able to use what we learned from this project to help us overcome problems in our future assignments. 

Chris also had a hard time motivating himself to do a project that wasn't due till Saturday when all the other more immediate homework was due. He also was similar to me in that he really liked the specificity of the rubric and the project in general. His post on Project One made me feel like my problems were actually common ones, and that maybe I'm not as terrible of a student as I thought. I also really like the title of his blog, it made me lol. 

I learned from Allison that it can be helpful to put yourself in the reader's shoes when writing assignments like this. I feel like that is a really good technique that I could use later on. She also seemed to have the problem that I did with writing too formally, but it seems like we were both able to overcome this issue. 

Project One Publication

VICTORY!! My final draft of project one on animal testing can be found here. Enjoy!

prettyinprint "Party Animal" 10/27/08 via flickr. Attribution No Derivs 2.0 Generic

Clarity, Part 2

In this post I will be evaluating four different sections of the Clarity chapter. I will be talking about what I learned from these sections. In addition, I will revise my own draft based on the information in the Clarity chapter and discuss what I learned in this revision. I will be discussing distracting shifts, emphasizing key ideas, providing some variety, and finding the exact words.

Licata, John "Ringside with Small Modular Nuclear Reactors as Round Two DOE Bell Rings"
3/27/13 via bluephoenixinc.com

1. Eliminating Distracting Shifts

In section 13 of Clarity, I learned about eliminating distracting shifts. These shifts can come in tense, point of view. I hadn't realized that second person narration was usually used for giving advice or instructing the reader. In this case its a good thing I used this tense since I'm informing the reader on the topic of animal testing. Changes in verb tenses can confuse the reader, however when I went back through my draft, I think I used the shifts effectively. Since this controversy takes place in the past, present, and future, I had to use shifts. However these shifts seem to be easy to follow.


2. Emphasizing Key Ideas

If there is one Clarity technique that I use most often, it is emphasizing key ideas. In my wordy sentences I almost always use conjunctive adverbs. In section 14 the book talks about how coordinating and subordinating ideas actually increases clarity. I had previously thought of it in sort of the opposite way. But the book made me realize that when used effectively, this emphasis in sentences can be quite effective.

For example, in one sentence from my draft, I claim that "The issue is far from resolved, however many new developments bring into question the legitimacy of using animals as a form of product testing." By using "however", I draw equal attention to both ideas. Since they are equally important, this is an effective way of guiding the reader to notice what I want them to notice.


3. Provide Some Variety

I tend to have some difficulty with the different beginnings of my sentences and different sentence structures. I find the structure or beginning I am comfortable with and cling to it until death do us part. However as I well know, section 15 tells me that this get's super repetitive and boring for the reader. I mean like really Bailey, how many more compound-complex sentences can you write??

To try to solve this problem, I went back through and found that I like to use "however" to start my sentences a lot of the time. To try to provide variety, I switched out the "however" in he sentence "However in America, animal testing is maintained as a leading way of testing new products." I changed it to "And yet". I also switched out the "however" in the sentence "However, this method has its drawbacks" to "But". This hopefully broke up some of the monotonous hoards of "howevers".

I also have a tendency to use compound-complex sentences. As I explored in previous posts, this comes from my need to fit as much info as possible into one sentence. It just makes sense to me that way. But I realize that this might be a bit much for the reader to handle (sorry everyone that has to read my writing). In editing my draft, I tried to break my overwhelming sentences into smaller and clearer ones. I also eliminated some adjectives that may have been overwhelming. Through this editing I made it so my writing had more variety in structure.


4. Find the Exact Words

My high school English teacher would adore section 18. When we would get essays back, there would always be at least a scattering of words circled with "W.C." written next to them. This "W.C.", or "word choice" referring to the exact meaning of a word is emphasized extensively in this section. I found it interesting to realize that issues with exact words can show bias. For example in the book, they refer to the difference between "abandon" and "leave", While these have obvious differences in connotation, they also can show how the writer feels about the subject.

I am fairly confident in my unbiased approach to my QRG. But when I went back through my draft, I changed some of my word use to more exactly mean what I meant. I also eliminated some of the bias that may have leaked through a bit by focusing on my connotative word choice. I feel like this evaluation of using exact words helped me to fine tune my draft a bit more.

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

In this post, I will be referring to my grammatical analysis of my longest paragraph in my QRG draft. In this exercise I evaluated this paragraph for parts of speech, sentence patterns, subordinate word groups, sentence structures, and sentence purposes. In this post I will reflect on this evaluation.

Schu "Superhero Grammar" 03/19/08 via flickr. Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 2.0 Generic

This exercise overall told me that I have some LONG sentences.I already knew that I was wordy, but wow, all the commas. There were so many times where I hardly knew how to identify the sentence type because of how complex they were. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. However noticing it made me want to simplify some of them just for variety's sake. 

Also, I had to change a declarative sentence into a question so I would have more than one sentence purpose. I think I could benefit in having some other sentences besides declarative, because I think for the most part my work is just declarative with the occasional imperative. Especially in QRGs, I think it might be sort of necessary to have a lot of declarative sentences since it is so information based. 

I actually didn't have any problem at all finding all of the parts of speech. That makes me feel like maybe I'm doing alright with the variety in that aspect of my writing. 

Overall this activity just added on to the overall constant feeling of "but wait, there's more!" in this project. Just when I don't think I could possibly evaluate my writing in any other ways, I am surprised. I actually really like that about this project, because we are getting to analyze our drafts in so many different ways. It keeps the process of going over and over your work more interesting, because we're (at least I am) constantly finding new ways to improve our QRG. 

Paragraph Analysis

In conducting a paragraph analysis of my draft, I discovered a few things that had previously gone unnoticed. I feel like I'm playing hide and go seek almost with all these different errors in my writing, it always seems like "Oh THERE you are you sneaky little mistake". But with all this searching, I feel like I'll be able to have a well written QRG as a result.

Raising Lifelong Learners "Preschool Science: Studying Bats with Hide and Sonar-Seek" via Google Images.

For one, I'm slacking pretty badly on transitions between paragraphs. I previously went back and made sure that transitions between SECTIONS were well done, but I forgot to analyze the separate paragraphs as well.I will definitely  be going back and making sure that there is more of a flow between paragraphs.

However I do a pretty solid job of stating the main point and developing it. I was actually pleasantly surprised to find that for the most part I have some pretty developed main points in my different paragraphs. I stay on topic and seem to relate everything back to how it affects the animal testing controversy.

I also am pretty good at linking my statements using parallelism and organizing my thoughts so that they make logical sense. Everything seemed to be in the right place for the most part sequentially, and I think it was pretty east to follow paragraph to paragraph.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

In my peer reviewing adventure, I read and commented on Mathias and Aaron's drafts.

In the rest of this post I will be answering questions on audience and context from the textbook, as well as explaining what I learned in the peer review process.

Kraal, Ben "Essential Note-Taking Materials" 11/25/11 via flickr. Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivs 2.0 Generic

AUDIENCE:

I am trying to reach my classmates and professor, as well as the general QRG audience with my Quick Reference Guide. I want to be sure to fill their expectations that I provide them with a quick overview of the topic of animal testing. They (my professor especially) values a well done and easy to read paper. I plan on going back through to see if I am being TOO detailed, specifically in the description of the controversy.

I need to expect that my audience does not know much about the controversy at hand. Especially when I know that most of my classmates who will be reading this are NOT biology majors (and for that matter haven't been researching the subject for weeks now), I need to provide them with a detailed yet concise work where they can get the gist of the argument. However I need to go back and make sure that I clearly define terms like "in vitro" that the reader may not know about.

I need to maintain a conversational tone throughout my QRG so that it doesn't feel overwhelming for the general audience. The QRG format of subheadings in the form of questions ensures that the reader feels like they aren't being lectured. I tried to keep this tone throughout my draft, and maintain the casual language as well. I want to make sure I'm not being too formal because being used to essays, I might have been too structured and lecture-y about it.


CONTEXT:

I met the formatting requirements of the QRG by making effective use of white space, using pictures, using links as citations, and providing a title and multiple subheadings throughout my paper. I am still thinking about using more subheadings, maybe one about the different animals used like Austin suggested.

The content requirements state that I must give a brief overview of the topic, making sure that the reader knows why animal testing should matter to them. I also ensured that I gave them a general idea of the different viewpoints on the topic. I think I gave all sides of the argument fairly equally.

I made sure to implement the knowledge in writing a QRG that I learned in class. This includes formatting, content, quoting, linking, and use of pictures. I didn't know nearly this much about the subject before I began this project, and therefore my knowledge gained is represented in a cohesive paper on the topic. I also included my own voice in the way I presented the details and formatted my QRG.

I checked for grammatical errors by reading the draft aloud, and my peer reviewers caught a few that I missed. I am definitely going to be sure to go back and read it out loud again after I've edited even more, because ironically it is sometimes in my edits that I make grammatical errors.

Clarity, Part 1

Based on my past experiences with my writing, I could improve on my own writing by taking the textbook's advice on adding needed words, untangling mixed constructions, repairing misplaced modifiers, and being less wordy (this sentence being exhibit A of my wordiness). I read chapters 10, 11, 12, and 16 in the Clarity section of the book, and in this post I will relay what I have learned from these readings.

metagalactic "Blah Blah Blah..." 10/30/07 via flickr. Attribution- Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic

In chapter 10, I read about adding needed words. In my own writing, I sometimes tend to (in trying to shorten my sentences) leave out important words. Leaving these words out can sometimes make the sentence not make sense anymore. I especially related to 10c, where the book talked about how reorganizing the sentence can fix any confusion. I always struggle to do that with my own writing, but the book's technical breakdown of how it should be done was new to me. I have always just fixed it until it sounded right, but now I know the actual way to do it.


Mixed construction of sentences has also been a struggle in my writing. In chapter 11, the book talks about how being too wordy can actually mess up the meaning of the sentence. This untangling of the construction of sentences also helps with the wordiness of my writing. Taking out unneeded phrases can help with both the construction and wordiness of my sentences.


Misplacing modifiers is something that I do often in my writing. However most of the time, I am able to eliminate these dangling modifiers in the revision stage. In chapter 12 I got a new look on exactly what a misplaced modifier is. I knew that I did that in my writing sometimes, but never knew there was a name for it. I actually enjoy finding misplaced modifiers in my revision, because when I fix them it makes the sentence so much better. In this chapter I got a few new examples on what a misplaced modifier is and effective ways to resolve them in my writing.


Ah wordiness. The eternal battle. I often find myself trying to cram needed information into a sentence to the point where it seems to last forever. This is a result of my desire to make the sentence "pretty". However chapter 16 of the Clarity section offered insights on this problem. The book helped me realize that sometimes it is more important for the sentence to be less pretty and more functional. Especially in QRGs, being concise is very important, and I need to worry about getting the main point across without all the fluff.


Reflection:

When reading Aaron and Mathias' drafts, I discovered that we had some of the same issues when it came to Clarity.


Specifically when it came to being wordy, all of us seemed to have problems every now and then. In Aaron's paper, in the sentence "Your ISP has been recording your browsing history and who you connect to and why, your cell phone company knows your everyday routine and can predict where you will be in the near future, and the National Security Agency probably knows you’re currently reading this paper", I realized something that I do as well in my writing. I try to pack too much info into the sentence, when separating them into two sentences would make the sentence stronger.


In Mathias' paper, I also found some confusion in sentence construction. In his paper, he states that "Some of it has to do with culture, some of it may just be the extreme testing and scrutiny that results in more cyclist being caught than other athletes, but it is hard so say for sure." Just as I do in my writing, he could make this sentence stronger by taking out the redundant part of the sentence. This makes it more obvious to me how to fix my own writing when I have this problem.

Thoughts on Drafting

In this post I will evaluate the book's advice for writing based on the QRG genre. I will decide what advice is useful to the QRG genre and what they tell us to do that isn't so helpful.

OpenClipartVendors "Brownie Elf Book Magic Myth Pixie Sprite" 09/18/14 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

In the essay style the book refers to, a thesis is meant to state your argument in basically one sentence. However for the Quick Reference Guide, for the most part there is no argument besides "this is what these groups are upset about". Because of this your "thesis" isn't really a sentence so much as your introduction section. The QRG is not meant to be biased, but is meant to be a skimmable and concise, yet detailed piece of work. The book's advice on the thesis statement does not follow with this genre's style.


Writing the paragraphs in PIE format is one thing that the book tells us to do that we can use in our QRG. Writing in point, illustration, explanation format  keeps the audience engaged and also gives quick and organized xplanations on the subject matter, which is an important aspect of a Quick Reference Guide.


I think the book's tips on how to write an introduction was mostly helpful. Its advice on how the introduction should be a brief overview was helpful, as well as its instruction to not let it become a "book report" in that it is a mere summary of information. You want to give insights on the material, not just a summary. These are both important things to keep in mind in the QRG genre.


The book's advice on how to organize information and paragraphs is mostly helpful. The book gives good directions on how writers should organize our arguments in a way that makes sense (for example don't talk about the future of the controversy before you explain what the controversy is about), so as to increase the ease if reading. This is obviously very important in a QRG as well as an essay. However on the other hand, the book tells us that its important to continue your arguments from paragraph to paragraph, which is NOT a part of the QRG genre. In the QRG the sections can largely stand on their own, because every section is about a different aspect of the topic.


The book's advice on how to write a conclusion was very helpful. While in QRGs you aren't supposed to really summarize what you just wrote about since that's redundant when you aren't writing in essay format, you ARE supposed to look forward and answer the so what question. In a QRG since the audience is very general and typically un-researched on the subject, they want to know why this topic matters and where this issue might go in the future. The conclusion is an important part of the QRG, and its important to keep the audience in mind when writing your conclusion.


Later on:


After reading Jon and Jovanka's posts on drafting, I actually was surprised by the differences in what we found helpful. Jovanka seemed to find more things not helpful than I did, but responding to her saying that illustrations weren't important actually made me feel like they were more important, so I plan to go back and insert better/more pictures into my QRG. She also stressed the importance of subheadings, which I was already thinking I could use more of.

Jon on the other hand pointed out that transitions between sections is important. I had sort of forgotten to consider this, and I think by not using transitions it makes my draft more choppy. So I will definitely go back and make sure that there is more of a flow to the whole thing.


Things to fix:

1. Transitions between paragraphs

2. More/more specific subheadings

3. More/better pictures

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

Dear Peer Reviewers,

Well, I tried. But seriously, I hope that I have given an unbiased and informative QRG on animal testing. Let me know where you think I should add in any more statistics for maximum effectiveness.

Also, if there is anything I need to clarify or elaborate more or less on, let me know. I was trying to stay very unbiased in my draft, but maybe I need to seem more intense about the issue? Here is a link to my draft: Animal Testing Controversy Explained. Thank you ahead of time for the peer reviewing!

Tumisu "Checklist List Check Check List Note Box Tick" 09/01/15 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

Practicing Quoting

In this blog post I pulled two quotes from two of my different sources on the topic of animal testing and integrated them into a paragraph in Google Docs. My previous CSE citation guide did not have instructions for direct quotes, and so I will be following this guide to cite my quotations instead.

Mattox, Bailey "In the Controversy" 09/11/15 via screenshot. 

QRGs: The Genre

Using the examples of quick reference guides we looked at in class this week, I will be evaluating the Quick Reference Guide as a genre. Using these guides I will answer questions about the different characteristics and techniques in this type of writing.

Altmann, Gerd "Board Questions Who What How Why Where" 06/11/2015 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

The first convention of the QRG is hyperlinking to relevant sites. The hyperlinking is formatted so that the link stands out. This makes the reader's eye immediately drawn to the link, making it easier to find. The purpose of the Quick Reference Guide is to give you a detailed but concise overview of a particular issue, and hyperlinking lets the author offer the reader additional information without making the QRG excessively lengthy.

Another convention is the use of subheadings. The reader makes these headings in a bigger and bolder font than the rest of the text so that it is easy to see and find where the sections are divided. These subheadings often take the form of questions in order to guide the reader and let them know what information will be covered under the subheading. 

An informal tone is also an important convention. The typical audience of the Quick Reference Guide is pretty general, and not necessarily experts on the topic they're reading about. This is because the QRGs are presented in a place (online) where normal people will be just scrolling through, not necessarily looking for a scholarly report. By keeping the tone conversational, the writer presents the information in a way that is easy to follow and understand for the typical reader. Some QRGs expect a bit of previous knowledge on the subject,  but they don't usually go beyond general knowledge almost any reader would already have. 

Relevant pictures are also seen in these guides. The author of the QRG uses these visuals to both give the reader a visual representation of the information being presented and also to break up the text. The author tends to place these pictures in a way where they can give the reader a few seconds of break from reading the text. The general audience reading the quick reference guide probably often enjoys pictures as a more fun part of the article than the actual text, and as such the pictures keep them interested. Pictures also evoke emotional appeal to prove the author's point, and make the topic seem more relevant and real to the reader. 

Quick Reference Guides are an efficient way of presenting detailed material to a general audience, and the design choices and visuals the writer uses compile to create a very readable and understandable source of information.

Later on:

What I learned when reviewing Zayla, Grace, and Michaela's blog posts was that we as a class seem to have a pretty solid understanding of the QRG genre (at least in theory, we'll see about in practice later!). I couldn't really find anything to correct for any of them. That makes sense considering we went over this and discussed it in class, so I guess yay we all pay attention in class!

Cluster of My Controversy

In this post I will show and explain a cluster on the topic of animal testing that I made using Coggle. The link to my diagram can be found here.

In my cluster, I first sorted out the different sides in the subject of animal testing in laboratories. I established the different main groups into animal rights activists, those that were pro animal testing, and those that were pro alternatives to animal testing. After that I broke the different sides into prominent organizations or groups within the different sides. Once I had branched those off, I then listed for each group the values of the group as well as what they were saying about the topic and where/how they were saying it. 

Below is a downright tiny image of my cluster. And because that is really just ridiculously tiny due to the fact that I spread it out for readability and to make it easy to see the different branches, a link directly to my cluster can be found here.

Mattox, Bailey "Animal Testing in Laboratories" 09/10/15 via Coggle. 

Later on:

Through reading my peer's posts, I learned that there are many ways to Coggle. Both Hunter and Zayla used Coggle in their posts, but they used it in slightly different ways than I did.

In Zayla's post, I liked how she sorted the different groups and effectively explained their ideologies. I noticed that it was a little hard to follow though, and that made me feel more confident in how spread out my Coggle was.

Hunter's blog post was extremely organized and easy to follow, and his use of color coding actually inspired me to change my own Coggle to have more different colors so it would be easier to follow the different branches.

Using Coggle actually helped a lot with the organization of my thoughts. At first I was a bit skeptical because I typically prefer to use pencil and paper to outline because the thoughts and ideas tend to come rapid fire. But I think that using this tool actually helped me to get my thoughts down in a logical and clear manner instead of my usual mess of an outline.

I believe that the outlining and clustering phase is a very important step in the writing process (at least to me it is). This helps the reader find the connections between different sources and organizations as well as group them in a logical way. I even think that doing something like this before every writing assignment would begin to form the basis for the different sections and grouping in your assignment.

Annotated Bibliography in CSE Style

In Biology, as with most sciences, the citation style of CSE is used predominantly. Using this style, with Penn State University Libraries' CSE Quick Citation Guide's help, I have composed below an annotated bibliography of the six sources I used for my research on animal testing.

Stienstra, Andrys "Stack Letter Letters Handwriting Family Letters" via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

References

Akhtar A. Who Are the Animals in Animal Experiments [Internet]? 2014 [Cited 2015 September 5]; Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/who-are-the-animals_b_4545611.html

Aysha Akhtar's article on the horrors of animal testing is intended to convince the reader of the wrongness of animal testing and try to get the readers to change the current system. In her article the author uses personal experience as well as suggests better protection of the animals and harsher fines for the companies that commit animal welfare violations. While this article is very biased, the author possesses credibility in the fact that she is a doctor, neurologist, and public health specialist. In addition she brings up many interesting statistics, findings, and ideas that I can use. I also plan to use her as an excellent example of someone who is very anti-animal testing.



Aubrey A. Outrage Over Government's Animal Experiments Leads to USDA Review [Internet]. 2015 [Cited 2015 September 5]; Available from: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/02/06/384103870/outrage-over-governments-animal-experiments-leads-to-usda-review

Allison Aubrey's article on animal testing brings important facts about this experimentation and the legislation that is being fought for on this topic. This article encourages normal people to push the legislation through and end the animal testing that happens in laboratories. This article takes quotes from both sides and gets some of the important facts out. I plan to use this article to show a fairly unbiased side with good use of direct quotes within.



Emotional Mojo. Human Undergoes Animal Testing [Internet]. 2013 [Cited 2015 September 8]; Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYN3O2fdp4

Emotional Mojo's video on Youtube is intended to show the audience an example of a demonstration by animal right's activists to show the horrors of animal testing. This video showed a prominent animal rights activist who put together a demonstration in which she played the "animal" and someone performed various gruesome "experiments" on her to show what the animals in labs go through. This video gives a different perspective on the topic, and makes the watcher see animal testing from the perspective of a human watching another human be tortured. I plan to use this video as an example of what activists are doing to get the message out and it will be very useful in that it is a completely new take on the subject.

Engebretson M. Argentina and Russia Take Cruelty Free Step [Internet]. Published 2014 Updated 2015 [Cited 2015 September 8]; Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-engebretson/argentina-and-russia-take_b_8057114.html

Monica Engebretson's article on the phasing out and banning of animal tested cosmetics in Russia and Argentina is intended to show its readers the global effort on the animal testing front. The article talks about how Russia and Argentina both introduced bills limiting and eventually phasing out cosmetics that have been tested by animals. I plan to use this article to show that animal testing is an international conflict, and to give an example of the progress that is being attempted to be made worldwide in this issue.

Goldberg A, Rowan A. Conceptual Approaches to Conceptual Methods in Toxicology Testing [Internet]. 1987 [Cited 2015 September 5]; 

Available

from: http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/view/5896/3036

Alan M. Goldberg and Andrew N. Rowan's article on this subject provides the Biological world with methods that would make the testing less unpleasant for the animals involved. The Biological community could use these alternatives to minimize the disagreements on the topic of animal testing. The authors suggest cell cultures as an alternative. I plan to use this as a very scholarly source of information and ideas on ways to compromise the issue. 

Huang S. China Ends Animal Testing Rule for Some Cosmetics [Internet]. 2014 [Cited September 8]; Available from: http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/china-ends-animal-testing-rule-for-some-cosmetics/?_r=0

Shaojie Huang's article informs the reader of changes in animal testing policy in the world today. This article states that China has ended its policy about required animal testing and opened up other options for cosmetic testing. Previously China had a policy that required animal testing in the making of their cosmetic products. This article is another interesting example of animal testing throughout the world, and I plan to use it for this purpose as well as for the policy change in the world. I think one of the most interesting aspects of this article is that it brings up a Chinese animal testing policy that is behind in the times compared to other countries  in the world, and I plan to use this to show the differences in progress and policies throughout the world.

Kaiser J. PETA study finds 'dramatic' rise in use of lab animals in United States [Internet]. 2015 [Cited 2015 September 5]; Available from: http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2015/02/peta-study-finds-dramatic-rise-use-lab-animals-united-states

Jocelyn Kaiser's article provides the public with up to date knowledge on the controversy of animal testing. This article states in an unbiased way the viewpoints of PETA and the National Association for Biomedical Research. The NABR claims that the rise in test animals is due to the rise in overall research, while PETA says the numbers are highly excessive. I plan to use this source as an unbiased run down of each side's case very basically and clearly stated.

Long Island Orchestrating for Nature- KIDS. Unseen They Suffer, Unheard They Cry; In Agony They Linger, In Loneliness They Die [Internet]. 2015 [Cited 2015 September 5]; Available from: https://www.facebook.com/HumaneLongIslandKids/photos/a.442138579237000.1073741828.441896222594569/836029476514573/?type=1&theater

Long Island Orchestrating for Nature- KIDS's post linked to several relevant sites. This post was primarily targeted for its followers, and stated that the sheer number of animals in lab was overkill. This provides some interesting confirmed statistics on animal testing. I plan to use this source for its statistics it contains.

Lorenzetti S. Innovative non-animal testing strategies for reproductive toxicology: the contribution of Italian partners within the EU project ReProTect [Internet]. 2011 [Cited 2015 September 5]; 

Available from: http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0021-25712011000400016&lng=en&tlng=en

Stefano Lorenzetti's article on the alternative methods to animal testing targets the Biological community. The article claims that in vitro models and cell cultures could potentially satisfy the needs of the research facilities.I plan to use this article to back up the claims in the other scholarly article and interesting alternatives. 

Surfcat Cafe and Adoptions. Dr. Lawrence Hansen: Cruel cat experiments unnecessary [Internet]. 2015 [Cited 2015 September 5]; Available
from: https://www.facebook.com/surfcatcafeandadoptions/posts/876582289086574

Surfcat Cafe and Adoptions' post was written for its followers to link them to further education on the topic of animal testing. The article encourages the education of the general public on the topic, and links them to relevant and helpful articles. It also provides a doctor's perspective, and also links to a very interesting project directly relating to what happens to animals after they are released from the laboratories. I plan to use this post and the attached links to give additional evidence and perspective on this topic.


Later on:

The main difference I found when evaluating Lia and Olivia's Annotated Bibliographies was that they did not link to the article directly in the citation, while I was under the impression that you were supposed to. This sort of makes me wonder if I am actually the one that is wrong about this, even though it shows them hyperlinked in the examples?

Lia wrote in the same citation style as I did, and we were very similar in the structure of our citations, which is a definite good sign, and made me feel more confident about my citation.

Olivia however wrote in JAND, and I was just a wee bit jealous of how straight forward her style seemed to be. She did a great job of following her guide, and I like how her bibliography is short and concise and yet still covers all the details needed.

Evaluating my peers' Annotated Bibliographies sort of made my head spin. Its crazy how different the citations for different disciplines can be, and this practice makes citing seem quite complicated. However I can see how in some disciplines it may be more important to specifically state where the articles were found to determine their relevance, where in others it would be less important and as such more precise. 

Ideology in My Controversy

In my assessment of the topic of animal testing, I have explored many different sources relating to this controversial issue. In this post I will  answer questions about the different groups I have discovered through my research.

On one side of the argument are animal rights organizations which want to ban the animal testing in laboratories because they believe it to be unethical. On the other side are research groups who believes that the benefits to human medicine outweigh the ethical arguments against animal testing.

Some of the major speakers for the group opposed to animal testing are PETA and the Beagle Freedom Project who beleive that animal testing is torture. A major speaker for the use of animals in research is the National Association of Biomedical research which would obviously believe in the benefits that come from such testing.

Groups like PETA and other pro-animal rights groups have an immense amount of social, cultural, and political power over the animal lovers of the nation. Widely known for their horror stories, animal rights organizations carry a lot of weight with the public. Conversely, pro-testing groups carry a lot of power in the medical world. The scientific breakthroughs that come from this testing are enough to convince many people that the testing is worth it.

The resources available to both sides are basically the same. They both have access to scientific studies to prove their cases, as well as literal proof that can be found in the lab through scientific studies or physical evidence.

The pro-animal righters value the ethical treatment of animals. They believe that animal testing is the same as animal abuse, and as such they believe it should be outlawed. On the other hand, research facilities using these animals value the advancement of knowledge to potentially save human lives. Through animal testing they believe that they can produce better medicine and products that otherwise could not be obtained without human suffering.

For the groups that support animal testing, evidence for their case is the medical breakthroughs and human benefit that comes from the use of animals in labs. For the groups for animal rights, their evidence comes in the form of the gruesome aftereffects of the testing on the animals and the caged life they live in the laboratories.

ClkerFreeVectorImages "Co-Workers Arguing Argue Workers People Yelling" via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

In my opinion the research facilities hold more power than the pro-animal organizations because despite the activists' protests, there is still animal testing. People also tend to give hard core credibility to science because it is typically proved with concrete fact. However people on the ethical side of things are harder to give power to because ethics are so subjective. Power tends to gravitate to the group with the concrete facts, and I believe this is also the case in this debate.

Usually it is agreed upon that although the animals will be used for research, they deserve to be treated with common decency. The research companies are not intentionally malicious to the animals they test, and even are known to release the animals after a certain amount of time in captivity. In all of the sources I reviewed, even when they were pro-testing, they talked about the need to make the animal's experience as calm and painless as possible. Although this is far from what organizations like PETA want, they at least can find the common ground in that fact.

The uncommon ground between them is basically the source of the argument. The research facilities are unable to compromise the fact that animal testing has a variety of uses, and animal rights activists are unable to compromise that the animals are in pain and being, in a way, tortured. The difference is in the groups' ethical value, and views that strongly held are not likely to change anytime soon.

The groups do respond quite a bit to each other. However animal rights activists tend to be much more vocal about their dissent. This comes from the fact that the research groups are already in place and just have to hold their ground while the pro-animal groups have to fight to gain ground. Therefore as a result the activists are constantly releasing statements about new horrors they've unveiled, while the research groups just have to calmly counter these revelations.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

Using Storify, I created a story about animal testing and the social media talk about it. Using Facebook, I searched and analyzed the sources I found. Below I am posting my evaluation of two of the most useful people that posted and evaluating the post and the person who posted the story as well. While both of these posts are very biased, I believe they still offer important and relevant information on this subject.

Source #1

Mattox, Bailey "Screenshot of 'Long Island Orchestrating for Nature- KIDS'"
via facebook.com

The first source was written by an organization called "Long Island Orchestrating for Nature", an organization for animal rights out of, you guessed it, Long Island.

In their post, they talk about the number of animals killed each year by animal testing, and offer their own alternative "cruelty free" products. I was able to verify the numbers they offered with the numbers offered by "Humane Society International" which is a reputable source on this subject.

As you can imagine from their name, they are directly related in that they are pro-nature and pro-animal rights, and they have many other posts relating to animal cruelty (in fact basically everything they write relates to this subject) and they often post sad looking pictures of animals to help raise awareness for their cause.

The account was only created in 2013, but I still believe that the information is reliable after  verifying with other sources and because of their followers which include the "Wildlife Preservation Coalition".

Source #2

Mattox., Bailey "Screenshot of 'Surfcat Cafe and Adoptions'"
via facebook.com

The organization "Surfcat Cafe and Adoptions" is responsible for the second post in which they linked me to an article about cat testing in labs and also the "Beagle Freedom Project" which is trying to release beagles (I'm not sure why beagles specifically but they're adorable so...) from laboratory testing.

Their institution and those they linked me to seem to be credible based on their notoriety and the Google searches I did on them. They are very directly related with animal rights and help rehab animals that have gone through traumatizing situations and find them homes.

This organization often post pictures of the animals in their care, as well as many links to articles relating to animal rights. They are not followed by any big organizations, but the reviews from their individual followers are overwhelmingly positive.

They are a very recently started page, but the large amount of reviews for their page leads me to believe that they are reliable and have an established reputation in the field of animal activism.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

After analyzing an article from a general Google search about animal testing, I will now analyze two more articles on the subject from scholarly sources.

Francais "Dog Cage Only" via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

Article #1

The first article I will be evaluating is titled "Innovative Non-Animal Testing Strategies for Reproductive Toxicology: "The Contribution of Italian Partners Within the EU Project RePro Tect". I found this article through the Web of Science search using the words "animal testing research", and then followed the links until I came to a full text version.

The article was published by Stefano Lorenzetti, an expert in Molecular Biology, Endocrinology, and Cell Biology. The purpose of this article is to educate the reader and possible policy makers on the horrors and alternatives to animal testing in research in hopes of prompting further discussion and eventual change in the current policy.

It was published on September 19th 2011 after peer review. I could not find where the source was originally published and in what form, however the author is from Rome, Italy. Within this article, ninety three (yes, NINETY THREE) sources are cited, a majority of which are other scholarly sources on the topic.

The words used in the text are pretty complicated, and anyone who is not "science-y" would have a difficult time understanding what Lorenzetti was saying. From these factors I determined that this source was reliable, complete, and really quite scholarly.

Article #2

This next article was found with the same search and procedure as Article #1 on Web of Science, and is titled "Conceptual Approaches to Alternative Methods in Toxicology Testing". This article explains the possibilities for decreasing animal stress in the testing process, and seems to be written to inspire future debate and thought on the possibilities for making animal testing more humane.

The authors Alan M. Goldberg and Andrew N. Rowan both work for Universities (John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and Tuft's School of Veterinary Medicine respectively) giving them credibility in the field of animal health.

This source was published by Defense Science Journal and published by annual peer review. Just like the first source, the words and concepts used in this article would be suited to intellectuals with a good background in Biology. In addition, this work has ninety two sources (Article #1 for the win) mostly citing other scientists and their work in similar and related fields. Overall I find this source very credible due to its many qualifications as a scholarly source.

Evaluation of General Sources

Science can be a controversial area for many people, be it because of religious, moral, or ethical reasons. In the field of Biology, one such controversial issue is that of animal testing and whether or not the benefits outweigh the negatives of such research. In this post I will be evaluating two sources on the topic of animal testing.

Article #1

Paulick, Karsten "Mastomys Mice Rodents Cute Close Society Nager"
via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

The first article is called "PETA study finds 'dramatic' rise in use of lab animals in the United States" and was written by "Science Magazine" writer Jocelyn Kaiser on February 25th 2015. This fairly recent upload date leads me to believe that the work is still relevant. The author has a history of reporting on biological issues as well as a degree in Chemical Engineering and Journalism. She seems to be a reputed source of information based on her past articles on similar topics of science.

In addition this site is a .org, and as such the source should be credible. There is only one link in the article, however it is still in use and leads to a relevant and recently updated science journal. There is one graphic on the page of a mouse, and the picture seems to be trying to simply illustrate the animal research happening, but not in a biased way. For example, it is not a bloody emaciated mouse in a filthy cage, but an apparently healthy one.

The article is actually remarkably unbiased in my opinion, and seems to be showing the sides of both PETA and the National Association for Biomedical Research. She talks about PETA's claim for the apparent rise of animals used in research and also justifications for this apparent rise without discrediting either side. In addition, after each quote, the author gives more detail on the organization and additional information on the topic of animal testing.Within the article Kaiser seems to do a very good job of simply informing the reader of the controversy without taking a stance on it, which in my mind gives it a lot of credibility.

Article #2

Huijbens, Yvonne "Cow Animal Nature Mammal Countryside"
via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

The second article I will be evaluating is called "Outrage Over Government's Experiments Leads to USDA Review" and was published by Allison Aubrey on February 6th 2015. Upon some stalking, I found that Allison Aubrey is more of a food activist than an animal activist. And while this draws her credibility into question a bit, when I read the article I found it may have actually decreased any bias. Really its my fault since the website itself is food centered, but the article still seems to be complete and well researched.

The URL is again a .org, and therefore is more likely to be credible. The publish date is recent (actually very close to the last article) and as a result it it more likely to be relevant. In addition there are a LOT of links leading me to info about basically all of the people and organizations she references in the article.

The graphics on the page are once again fairly unbiased, showing a slightly ruffled but very healthy looking cow. While slightly leading toward the animal activist side, Aubrey still made sure to include quotes from both ends of the spectrum. She does however focus a bit more on the horror stories of animal testing than the beneficial side. I believe that she tried very hard to smother her bias on the topic, just without quite as much success as the author in article one. However even with the slight disdain leaking out, I believe that this article did a decent job at covering the story and making the reader aware of the stories encapsulated within the animal testing debate.

My Field of Study

My major is Biology, and with my Biology degree I want to become a Zoologist. In this post, I am going to explore questions relating to my field of study.

PublicDomainPictures
"Baby Animal Gorilla Africa Black Primate Monkey"
via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain

1. In my program, students learn a variety of skills related to the study of life. One of the most important things Biology majors learn to do is make very detailed observations. Whether the Biology student hopes to become a conservationist or a zoologist, being able to make keen observations is a vital skill to learn. Also, students in my program learn to be able to make judgments based on their observations and knowledge. In a Biology job, there are many times where you have to be able to think on your feet and adjust to the situation. The skills of making observations and applying the observations and their knowledge to make judgments are important for any student in the Biology program to learn. 

2. People who get degrees in Biology typically go on to a job that focuses on research. Whether the research is with plants, animals, diseases, or nutrition, the majority of Biology related jobs are highly research centered. 

3. I was drawn to this field by my desire to research mountain gorillas and other large primates. I grew up in a ranching family and animals have always been a central part of my life. In addition to this love of animals in general, I have long been fascinated by gorillas and their interaction and human-like tendencies.  Being such a research-centric field, Biology gives me a strong background for my future job prospects in this field.

4. In my opinion, Jane Goodall is the most interesting person in my field right now. She is considered to be one of the most knowledgeable person when it comes to chimpanzees, and is well known for her work with the chimps and her groundbreaking findings on their tool making capabilities and surprising intelligence. I have always found her work in this field fascinating because of how close it is to what I want to do with my life. 

5. One leading academic journal in the Biological field is "Animal Behaviour" which is based out of the United Kingdom. Other leading academic journals are "Journal of Mammalogy" which is based out of Washington DC, and Journal of Zoology which is published out of London. 

Later on:

After reading Allison and Aaron's posts, I am inspired to explore different aspects of my major.

Allison's way of describing psychology made me realize that a psychology class would probably be very useful in my major. She is going to be studying people and I will be studying gorillas, but understanding why they act the way they do would obviously be super useful in both of our fields.

Aaron however has a completely different subject matter than me. However the way he talked about how he would be studying what makes up a computer sounded very similar to my own ideas about studying primates. He also made me realize that just like in Computer Science, there are many avenues to explore in Biology and so maybe I will research further on the opportunities available to me with my Biology degree.His passion for his major also reminds me of how I feel about my own.