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.