Reflection on Open Letter Draft

In this blog post, I will reflect on my draft of Project 4 by answering questions from Student's Guide. For this peer review process, I reviewed Michael and Victoria's drafts.

Lewis, Florencia, "Harry Potter's Hogwarts Letter." 08/13/12 via Flickr. Attribution License. 

1. Did you demonstrate an ability to think about your writing and yourself as a writer?

I did demonstrate an ability to think about my writing and myself as a writer to some degree. I tried to touch on all of the important parts of my writing experience, including my writing process and time management. These ideas could be a little more organized, however, so that I get my ideas across a little more clearly and concisely. I will need to work on the organization and flow of my ideas in order to demonstrate this more clearly.

2. Did you provide analysis of your experiences, writing assignments, or concepts you have learned?

I did touch on each of these things in my open letter. I wrote about my experiences with time management and the writing process and tied these in with specific writing assignments we had to complete. Additionally, I wrote generally about some of the concepts I learned, paying special attention to the idea of genre. However, I might want to be more specific when writing about what each writing assignment and experience taught me, instead of merely throwing in these examples without much analysis.

3. Did you provide concrete examples from your own writing (either quotes from your writing or rich descriptions of your writing process)?

I did provide concrete examples from my own writing, as I provided a few quotes to support my claims. These quotes help make my writing more concrete, but again, they could use further analysis or explanation that ties them into my writing better.

4. Did you explain why you made certain choices and whether those choices were effective?

I did explain why I made certain choices in my writing when I explained my chosen examples in my writing. However, I think I could include more explanation of how these choices were effective, and whether they remained effective throughout the rest of the semester.

5. Did you use specific terms and concepts related to writing and the writing process?

I used specific terms relating to the writing process, such as planning and revision. I also used terms such as genre and rhetorical strategies in order to tie my analysis into specific things we learned in this class.

Draft of Open Letter

In this blog post, you will find the draft of my course final. This draft can be found here.

William Arthur Fine Stationary, "Letter Play Important Roles in Our Lives." 05/25/10 via Flickr. Attribution-NoDerivs License. 

This draft is very rough, as I chose to simply get all of my ideas down on paper. Because of this, I would really appreciate any comments you might have, whether that has to do with the organization, content, or any other aspect of the letter. I definitely need to edit this letter considerably, but I would appreciate any feedback you have. Thank you!

Reflecting More on My Writing Experiences

In this blog post, I will provide additional reflection on my writing from this semester by answering a series of questions.

Live Life Happy, "Everything in your life is a reflection of a choice you have made. If you want a different result, make a different choice." 04/14/13 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike License.

1. What were the biggest challenges you faced this semester, overall?

Overall, my biggest challenges were time management and planning out my writing adequately. Managing my time through all of the planning and drafting stages was especially difficult, because I had never previously spent quite that much time on planning and drafting. For instance, blog posts earlier in the year that were meant to help me plan my writing, such as "QRGs: The Genre" for Project 1 and "Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations" for Project 2 took a lot of time, and forced me to work on something that I had not spent much time on previously. Because of my lack of previous experience in this respect, this process was especially difficult for me.

2. What did you learn this semester about your own time management, writing and editorial skills?

With regards to time management, I learned that I work better when I have long stretches of time to work on something, rather than small bits of time here and there. For me to get something done in a time effective manner, I often need to sit down for several hours to get something done. Because of this, my previous thoughts on time management from the beginning of the semester did not entirely work. I previously wrote, "I think my main goal in all of this will be to make good use of all of the free time I have, whether that's one hour between classes, or five hours at the end of the day. " The latter plan worked better for me, as I need relatively large amounts of time to complete my work. However, because I require these long stretches of time, I often procrastinate my work until I have an appropriately large amount of time to work on it.

This semester, I learned that my writing process does make me more of a sequential composer, but I got the opportunity to work even more on my planning and editorial skills. The deadlines each week forced me to spend roughly equal amounts of time on each part of the writing process, which was very beneficial for me. I learned that, in order for me to write effectively, the planning and editing stages of my writing are especially important. For instance, while writing my QRG, I was able to essentially copy and paste some of my writing from my planning into my draft, which really helped me organize my thoughts. This can be demonstrated by this bit of writing from my rough draft, which was taken partly from my annotated bibliography: "For instance, this paper published in Science proposes a series of ethical guidelines that the authors strongly encourage for any further research involving this gene-editing technology."

3. What do you know about the concept of 'genre'? Explain how understanding this concept is central to being a more effective writer.

This semester I feel that I learned a significant amount about the importance of genre to any type of writing. The conventions of a particular genre really determine a lot about what the purpose, audience, and outline of any piece of text is going to look like. This is especially important to determine because, even if you have good ideas that back your argument, the argument can become ineffective if it doesn't follow the guidelines of that genre. I learned this relatively early on in this semester, when we were working with QRGs, a genre I was previously unfamiliar with. However, by listing out the conventions of the genre in "QRGs: The Genre," I feel that I was able to more effectively incorporate its conventions in my own writing. I demonstrated this realization in the reflection on this blog post, in which I wrote, "This really helped me realize that there are many different parts of the QRG that I have to focus on in my own writing in order to effectively use this genre."

4. What skills from this course might you use and/or develop further in the next few years of college coursework?

I will use a lot of the writing and analytical skills I developed in this course. One thing I will definitely use is the planning process that this class made me accustomed to. For instance, with project 2, I found the planning especially useful. The blog post "Developing a Research Question" helped me begin my research, and the following posts encouraged me to analyze the cultural context, purpose, and audience of a text in depth. These research and analysis skills will help me analyze texts critically in the future, regardless of whether it's an English class or a science class.

In addition, analyzing the credibility of sources will be especially useful throughout college and my career. This class helped me pay special attention to the credibility of sources, and I found myself noticing things about these sources that I would not have noticed otherwise. For instance, in "Evaluation of General Sources," I wrote, "However, it does seem to demonstrate a slight bias towards the side of the debate that claims that the event was not as controversial as it is made out to be." This analysis proved to be useful in my paper, as it demonstrates how credibility might be affected my bias. This skill will prove to be very useful in the future.

5. What was your most effective moment from this semester in 109H?

My most effective moment from this semester might have occurred when I was drafting my QRG. At first, I was nervous to begin writing in a genre that I had not known about previously. However, when I sat down and began to write it, I found that I was able to complete it in a timely manner due to all of my previous planning. I knew the conventions of the genre because of former research, and I had plenty of research to choose from because of my annotated bibliography. In this case, all of the planning really came in handy as I began to write this QRG.

6. What was your least effective moment from this semester in 109H?

My least effective moment from this semester occurred when I was constructing my draft for project 3. I don't think I had adequately planned this draft out, as I ended up writing out all of the information in a way similar to an academic essay. As I was trying to write a blog post, this was not entirely effective. While it did allow me to get all of my ideas out onto paper, I think more planning and outlining would have been more effective in this case.

Revisiting my Writing Process

In this blog post, I will reflect on how my writing process and time management skills have evolved over the course of this class.

Alexas_Fotots, "Change, Time, Sad, Cry, Laugh, Cheerful, Funny." April 2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

Towards the beginning of this course, I self identified myself as a sequential composer, who spent equal amounts of time on planning, drafting, and revising. However, I also mentioned that my writing process really varied depending on the type of writing I was doing. Throughout this course, I have realized that I do mostly resemble a sequential composer; however, I have come to implement more of the heavy reviser's techniques as well. I usually spend roughly equal amounts of time on each part of the writing process, but my revising process has become much more thorough after conducting all of the peer review and other process work that goes into this step of the writing process.

With regards to time management, my initial goal was to use all of the small bits of time in between classes to catch up on any work for this class and other classes. I did end up implementing this strategy quite a bit, but I also ended up completing quite a bit of my work in large stretches of time that I set aside throughout the week. For instance, I found that I was more productive when I set aside a few hours on Fridays to do homework, rather than finding a couple hours between classes to do homework.

By reflecting on my writing process and time management skills, I have realized that my work habits really do depend on the type of situation I'm in. However, I have noticed that the writing process of the sequential composer does work best for me, and this is a strategy that I hope to carry with me in future courses. Time management really does depend on my workload each week, but overall, scheduling my time so that I have large blocks of time to work on homework usually works best for me. Overall, this has shown me that I do require some type of planning ahead, both with my writing and with other work. I did not procrastinate quite as much as I thought I would, so this shows me that I will (hopefully) not leave things until the last minute in the future.

Reflection on Project 3

In this blog post, I will reflect on Project 3 by answering a series of questions listed in Writing Public Lives page 520.

Silverman, Renee, "JUMP 4 JOY." 08/22/09 via Flickr. Attribution-NoDerivs License.

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?

The organization and tone of my draft were revised from one draft to another. In terms of organization, I tried to revise my draft so that the ideas flowed logically into each other, rather than abruptly from one point to another. This also helped me establish my pro position argument more effectively. I also adjusted the tone so that it addressed my audience and purpose more clearly and effectively.

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?

I focused my thesis a little more so that it only addressed the pros of my position. This meant that I had to significantly decrease the amount of time I spent refuting the opposite position, even though I included a little of this to increase my credibility. In terms of organization, I adjusted the draft so that the ideas flowed into each other logically and made my argument more clear.

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?

My shift in tone occurred due to a reconsideration of my audience. I had to adjust my writing so that it appealed to a more unscientific audience. In addition, my organization changed partially due to a shift in purpose, so that it addressed my pro position argument more clearly.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?

These changes increase my credibility, as the change in argumentation shows that I am a knowledgable source for this topic. I specifically made changes that increase my credibility through my tone and my use of evidence.

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?

The shift in tone and organization makes the argument easier to follow for my audience. Since my audience is likely not a part of the scientific community (even though they are interested in science), I adjusted my writing so that it is  engaging and understandable for them. This should help my audience understand and agree with my argument.

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?

I changed my writing style so that it sounded a little more informal and understandable. This involved using simpler sentence structures and using more colloquial diction.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?

These changes made my writing more informal and easier to understand. In particular, the lack of scientific language in my writing should make the argument more accessible for this audience. These changes should therefore help my audience easily understand my position in this argument.

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?

I did have to reconsider some of the conventions for a blog post. At first, my writing looked more like an essay, as it included dense sections of text and fewer pictures and blank spaces. To fix this, I made the writing a little less dense and added more spaces and pictures.

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?

This process helps me reconsider the type of writer I am. It especially helps me understand exactly what types of revisions I need to focus on with my writing. Oftentimes, I have all of the content I want to address written in my draft, but I need to change the way it is communicated in order to address my audience and purpose. This reflection helped me understand the areas I need to focus on in any future writing that I do.

Publishing Public Argument

In this post, you can find my final version of project 3 and some information regarding my writing. Project 3 can be found here.

Reinbold, Matt, "Celebrate." 07/04/08 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

1. Mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue (before reading/watcing/hearing your argument) below:

←-------------------------------------------------x---|--------------------------------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

2. Now mark with an "x" where you feel your target audience should be (after they've read/watched/heard your argument) below:

←---------------x-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------->

Strongly                                            Totally neutral                                                    Strongly

agree                                                                                                                          disagree

3. Check one (and only one) of the argument types below for your public argument:

         ___X____ My public argument etablishes an original pro position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument establishes an original con position on an issue of debate.

         _______ My public argument clarifies the causes for a problem that is being debated.

         _______ My public argument prooposes a solution for a problem that is being debated.

         _______ My public argument positively evaluate a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm supporting).

         _______ My public argument openly refutes a specific solution or policy under debate (and clearly identifies the idea I'm refuting).

4. Briefly explain how your public argument doesn’t simply restate information from other sources, but provides original context and insight into the situation:

Unlike other sources, this argument specifically focuses on the pros of CRISPR, rather than providing insight into both sides of the argument. It combines the practical benefits of this technology (the low cost and ease of use), as well as the treatment benefits (curing disease). While it does mention the other side of the argument briefly, this is done to build upon the pro position argument. This focus on the benefits of the technology has not been explored in other sources in this way.

In addition, the popular audience that this argument is aimed at is a novel approach to the public argument as well. Most arguments regarding this issue are aimed at very scientific audiences, but this argument is meant to appeal to those who might not be a part of the scientific community. In this way, both the content and audience of this argument is an original approach to this situation.

5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employed in your public argument below:

Ethical or credibility-establishing appeals

                    _____ Telling personal stories that establish a credible point-of-view

                    __X___ Referring to credible sources (established journalism, credentialed experts, etc.)

                    _____ Employing carefully chosen key words or phrases that demonstrate you are credible (proper terminology, strong but clear vocabulary, etc.)

                    __X___ Adopting a tone that is inviting and trustworthy rather than distancing or alienating

                    _____ Arranging visual elements properly (not employing watermarked images, cropping images carefully, avoiding sloppy presentation)

                    _____ Establishing your own public image in an inviting way (using an appropriate images of yourself, if you appear on camera dressing in a warm or friendly or professional manner, appearing against a background that’s welcoming or credibility-establishing)

                    _____ Sharing any personal expertise you may possess about the subject (your identity as a student in your discipline affords you some authority here)

                    __X___ Openly acknowledging counterarguments and refuting them intelligently

                    __X___ Appealing openly to the values and beliefs shared by the audience (remember that the website/platform/YouTube channel your argument is designed for helps determine the kind of audience who will encounter your piece)

                    _____ Other: 

Emotional appeals

                    _____ Telling personal stories that create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Telling emotionally compelling narratives drawn from history and/or the current culture

                    _____ Employing the repetition of key words or phrases that create an appropriate emotional impact

                    _____ Employing an appropriate level of formality for the subject matter (through appearance, formatting, style of language, etc.)

                    _____ Appropriate use of humor for subject matter, platform/website, audience

                    _____ Use of “shocking” statistics in order to underline a specific point

                    _____ Use of imagery to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Employing an attractive color palette that sets an appropriate emotional tone (no clashing or ‘ugly’ colors, no overuse of too many variant colors, etc.)

                    _____ Use of music to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    _____ Use of sound effects to create an appropriate emotional impact for the debate

                    __X__ Employing an engaging and appropriate tone of voice for the debate

                    __X___ Other: Use of emotionally compelling examples, not necessarily through narratives/stories

Logical or rational appeals

                    _____ Using historical records from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                    __X___ Using statistics from credible sources in order to establish precedents, trends, or patterns

                    _____ Using interviews from stakeholders that help affirm your stance or position

                    __X___ Using expert opinions that help affirm your stance or position

                    _____ Effective organization of elements, images, text, etc.

                    _____ Clear transitions between different sections of the argument (by using title cards, interstitial music, voiceover, etc.)

                    _____ Crafted sequencing of images/text/content in order to make linear arguments

                    _____ Intentional emphasis on specific images/text/content in order to strengthen argument

                    _____ Careful design of size/color relationships between objects to effectively direct the viewer’s attention/gaze (for visual arguments)

                    _____ Other: 

6. Below, provide us with working hyperlinks to THREE good examples of the genre you've chosen to write in. These examples can come from Blog Post 11.3 or they can be new examples. But they should all come from the same specific website/platform and should demonstrate the conventions for your piece:

Example 1 

Example 2

Example 3

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

For this peer review process, I reviewed Sam and Casey's project 3 drafts. Below, I will answer a series of questions to reflect on my own draft and this peer review process.

Litterio, Antonio, "Stipula fountain pen." 05/26/11 via Wikimedia Commons. Attribution Share Alike License.

1. Who reviewed your Project 3 draft?

Casey Frantz and Samantha Macklin-Isquierdo reviewed my draft.

2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received?

The feedback I received really gave me a better idea of what I need to work on. For instance, my peer reviewers suggested I add more rhetorical strategies, and focus less on the opposing side of my argument. This really helped me understand what I need to work on when it comes to the content of my project. One thing that did confuse me a bit was the feedback regarding the tone of my text. I personally thought my tone was a little to formal for the genre, but my peer reviewers suggested that I make it a little more formal. I will need to work on finding a middle ground between these for my final draft.

3. What aspects of Project 3 need most work going forward? How do you plan on addressing these areas?

The argumentation and genre need the most work going forward. To improve my argumentation, I will use more rhetorical strategies, and make more explicit use of these strategies. In particular, I think more ethical and logical appeals would be helpful with this audience. I will also refrain from referencing the other side of the argument as much as possible, since this argument is a pro position argument. Also, to adjust to this genre, I will adjust my tone and writing as necessary.

4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?

Overall, I feel much better prepared to write my final draft of this project after peer review and conferences. Although there are still some things I need to figure out for myself, this process helped me gain an outside perspective, which was very useful.

Draft of Public Argument

In this post, you can find a brief summary of my thoughts on my Project 3 draft. The draft can be found here.

OpenClipArtVectors, "Draft, Clipboard, Sketch, Board, Brown, Clip, Pencil." Nov. 2013 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

This draft definitely could use a lot of editing, so please feel free to point out any errors or suggestions, no matter how big or small! I am still thinking about adding subheadings to make it seem more logical and comprehensive. I tried to keep my genre, a scientific blog post, in mind while writing, but it definitely took some adjusting to write for this genre. Hopefully after some revisions that final product will reflect this genre well.

Considering Visual Elements

In this post, I will consider some questions regarding the visual elements of my project. A complete list of these questions can be found in Writing Public Lives pages 395-402.

Aldridge, Micky, "Question Mark Cloud." 06/03/10 via Flickr. Attribution License.

Visual Coherence

1. If my project uses headings for different sections of my argument, do these headings stand out and break up the text clearly? Should another font or font color be used to make them more distinct?

Because my genre is a blog post, subheadings will be very useful to keep my post concise and organized. These subheadings will help me organize information, and help my audience understand the logical flow of my argument. These headings will likely be bold and slightly larger than the rest of the text, but I don't plan on using another font or font color, as I feel that this might make the post seem more unprofessional.

Visual Salience

2. Is the theme or association that the image produces relevant to the theme of my argument?

For this post, I plan on using images of DNA and other images that are immediately recognizable and relevant. These images are relevant to my argument, and they also make it more visually appealing. I will definitely have to be careful about using images that carry the proper connotations, as they should make logical sense in the context of the argument.

3. Is the feeling or tone that the image invokes appropriate to the visual-rhetorical tone of my argument?

The images I choose to use should tie together to the argument and make people feel excited about the science and technology I am talking about. I will have to ensure that each of my images accomplishes this, and does not make the audience feel the opposite way.

4. Does the image inform or emphasize my argument in an important way, or does it seem superficial or unrelated to my argument?

My argument is not predominantly visual, but it will have some images in it. However, these images all need to connect to my argument appropriately, rather than look out of place. In order to do this, I will have to choose images that add to the argument, rather than take away from it. All of these images should make logical sense, and even cause some type of emotional reaction in some cases.

Visual Organization

5. Scan your public argument or your outline. Do your eyes move easily from section to section in the order that you intended?

At the moment, my outline does admittedly look a little cluttered and overwhelming. I think the main thing I will have to focus on here is trying to make the argument flow logically, and focus on the pros of my controversy, rather than trying to address every aspect of it. I am writing a position argument, so it will be important for me to stick with my position instead of trying to insert other forms of argument into my main one.

Visual Impact

6. Do the different visual and textual elements come together persuasively as  a whole, or are there elements that seem disconnected or out of place?

To accomplish this, I am planning on only using visual elements that make sense in the context they are presented in. I do want the images to help make the text more reader friendly, but they should still help persuade the audience of my perspective. Because of this, this idea will be very important to keep in mind.

Project 3 Outline

In this blog post, I will provide an outline for the blog post that I will be writing for Project 3.

B., Kristina, "Blogging Research Wordle." 09/07/08 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License.

Introduction

For my introduction, I will be using the first item from "Introducing your Public Argument," as given in Writing Public Lives page 415. This item, which advises connecting the issue to my audience's worldview, might be especially effective for this position argument for this particular audience. This audience holds a common belief in the value of science, so it is something that could be used as a hook for any reader. In addition, it can serve as an introduction for my position argument, since the audience will likely be able to tell what I am arguing right away. This way, I am both introducing the subject and expressing my main opinion in the introduction.

Developing Strong Supporting Paragraphs

Major Supporting Arguments

• This type of experimentation is necessary for the continuation of genomic research. Without this research, it will become difficult and nearly impossible to judge the effectiveness of current findings on human beings.
• This experimentation brings us one step closer to not only treating, but curing certain diseases that have caused much suffering. This research holds the possibility of curing these diseases before they become a problem.
• Without research, it is impossible to overcome the issues with this technology that we have already found. Research is the only way to ensure that this technology can be used on human beings.

Major Criticisms

•  Experimentation on human beings is ethically/morally wrong. Altering the genomic code goes against all ethical values.
• Sufficient permission is not attained to perform these tests. Human embryos cannot give permission for these experiments. 
• The current technology is too unsafe to use on human beings. 
• Designer babies could result from this research.

Select Your Key Support and Rebuttal Points

Key Support:

• This type of experimentation is necessary for the continuation of genomic research. Without this research, it will become difficult and nearly impossible to judge the effectiveness of current findings on human beings.
• This experimentation brings us one step closer to not only treating, but curing certain diseases that have caused much suffering. This research holds the possibility of curing these diseases before they become a problem.

Rebuttal Points:

•  Experimentation on human beings is ethically/morally wrong. Altering the genomic code goes against all ethical values. This also ties into the point about designer babies, and this is a popular concern that must be addressed.
• The current technology is too unsafe to use on human beings. This is a common point that often results in many misconceptions, so it should also be addressed.

Tentative Topic Sentences for Each Support/Rebuttal Point and Evidence

• Key Support 1: Further research into editing the human genome is the only way to see if this technology is viable for clinical use.
• Huffington Post: “Although it has attracted a lot of attention, the study simply underscores the point that the technology is not ready for clinical application”
• Key Support 2: Without this type of experimentation, we will have no way to tell whether this procedure could possibly cure potentially life-threatening diseases.
• YouTube Interview:“there is the potential, though, to [...] splice [diseases] out of the sequence before a child is even born” (2:07-2:16)
• Rebuttal 1: While many argue that genetically engineering the human genome is ethically wrong, it is worse to allow life-threatening diseases to carry on when there is a potential way to cure them.
• The Guardian: "However ignoring the resource is also risky. We may needlessly subject future generations to an endless cycle of suffering and disease."
• Rebuttal 2: More research is necessary in order to fix certain safety concerns with this technology, and ensure that it is safe to use in clinical settings.
• MIT Technology Review: “'These authors did a very good job pointing out the challenges,”'says Dieter Egli, a researcher at the New York Stem Cell Foundation in Manhattan. 'They say themselves this type of technology is not ready for any kind of application.'"

Map of My Argument

A Coggle of my argument can be found here.

Conclusion

For my conclusion, I will use the first item listed in "Concluding Strategies" in Writing Public Lives page 421. This item advises that I use a call to action to motivate my audience to act. This would be most effective here because of the particular audience I am addressing. Generally, this audience might feel that, while the controversy is interesting, they cannot act on it because they are not formally part of the scientific community. However, I want to use this strategy to show this specific audience how they might themselves contribute to the movement.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Hallye and Chelsea's posts on Considering Visual Elements. Both of their posts helped me realize how important it is for the visual elements to align with the genre, audience, and purpose of each public argument. For instance, Hallye's genre is more formal so it's important not to use too many images, and to make sure each image is important to the argument. Similarly, Chelsea specifically talked about choosing images that align with her topic and genre. This will be important for me to keep in mind as I start writing my draft for this project.

Analyzing My Genre

In this blog post, I will provide 5 examples of my genre, and then answer a series of questions from Writing Public Lives page 342.

Rockwell, Norman, "Perpetual Motion by Norman Rockwell." 06/29/09 via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain License.

Examples

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5

Social Context

1. Where is the genre typically set?

This genre is typically set in well-known blogs that focus on the subject matter of interest, which in this case involves science and technology. Many blogs of these types can be found in sections of larger, well-known online newspapers and magazines, such as the New York Times. They often feature specific opinions from well-respected authors. In my case, this blog is set in a more scientific magazine that caters to the general public.

2. What is the subject of the genre?

For my genre, the subject generally involves any scientific or technological current events. This blog generally publishes opinions and information about current scientific events that might be of great interest to the general public. For instance, the 3D printed "zoolophones" of example one are a new advancement that might be of interest to this particular audience.

3. Who uses the genre?

This genre is used by people who are trained in the scientific field, and who want to usually communicate some type of opinion or information about their subject of interest. This genre is not usually used by scientists and researchers, but the authors are still generally educated about the topic they are writing about.

4. When and why is the genre used? What purposes does the genre serve for the people who use it?

The genre is used to communicate some type of information or opinion about a specific topic or interest. It is usually used in this context as a way to keep up with current scientific events, and to help a broader audience understand these current events. For instance, example two gives background on a newly invented drone, and then provides a link and a video that the audience can go to for more information. In this way, its purpose is to inform and (sometimes) to persuade the audience.

Rhetorical Patterns of the Genre

1. What type of content is usually included and excluded?

This genre usually includes basic general background about the subject at hand. Depending on the subject, the blog post might include information about the subject, and then some type of opinion related to this. The genre often does not include very technical details that a broad audience might not understand.

2. What rhetorical appeals are used most often? Do you notice any patterns in the appeals to logos, pathos, or ethos?

This genre seems to mostly use appeals to logos and (sometimes) ethos. Logos is used to a considerable extent when the author provides background, facts, and statistics regarding the subject matter (as shown in example three). Ethos is sometimes used when the author chooses to quote experts, but it is a little difficult to establish credibility through a blog. While attempts at this are made, ethos is not the predominant appeal here.

3. How are the texts organized? Do they generally open in similar ways? Conclude in similar ways? What common parts do the samples share?

The texts generally open in a way that grabs the reader's attention (see, for example, the Star Trek reference in example four). They then give some context on the subject at hand to help the reader better understand the topic. The posts then conclude in slightly different ways, depending on their main purpose. Sometimes the post will link the reader to more information, add some concluding pieces of information, or forecast the future uses of the technology being written about.

4. Do the sentences in the genre share a certain style? Are they mostly active, passive, simple, or complex? Is there an abundance or lack of questions, exclamation marks, or semicolons?

This genre generally seems to utilize shorter, declarative sentences. These sentences usually use the active voice and have a simple sentence structure. Depending on the subject, there is generally a lack of questions, exclamation marks, and semicolons. Overall, this genre uses simple sentence structures to communicate its point.

5. What type of word choice is used? Do many of the words fit in a particular category of jargon or slang? Is the overall effect of the word choice formal, informal, humorous, or academic?

As shown by all of the examples above, the word choice in these blog posts generally consists of a a colloquial style of diction, without much jargon included. If there is a scientific term used, it is defined in a way that makes it accessible to a wider audience. Because of the way this type of diction is used, the overall effect is relatively informal, despite the academic nature of many of the subject matters.

Analyze What Those Patterns Reveal about the Social Context of the Genre

1. Who does the genre include and who does it exclude?

This genre includes a wide audience, generally made up of young people, educated (at least to the high school level) in science. These people might not be very academic people, but they still show an interest in scientific topics. The genre might exclude scientific experts and researchers, because it usually gives a broad overview of subjects that these people are already skilled in.

2. What role for writers and readers does the genre encourage?

The genre encourages writers to inform a broad audience of background on the issue, as well as some type of perspective on the subject, depending on the main purpose of the blog post. It encourages readers to learn about the subject and sometimes take action, again depending on the main purpose of that particular blog post.

3. What values and beliefs are assumed about or encouraged from users of the genre?

There is a distinct belief in the value of scientific and technological advancement that is both assumed and encouraged through this particular genre. Popular Science assumes that the readers care about scientific advancement, and the magazine and blogs perpetuate this belief.

4. What content does the genre treat as most valuable? Least valuable?

The genre treats background, facts, and statistics as the most valuable content of each blog post, as demonstrated by all of the aforementioned examples. Generally, tables and graphs are least valuable in this genre due to the nature of the audience.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Hallye and Chelsea's posts regarding their genres. Hallye chose a genre that is different from mine in that it is a little more academic, and aimed at a well-educated, financially well off audience. I found this really interesting to read about, since my genre and topic is so different from her's. Even so, there were definitely some similarities with how we are approaching this project. We are both adjusting our writing to appeal to a specific audience that reads a specific genre, and we are going about this in similar ways.

On the other hand, Chelsea is also planning to write a blog post like me. We came to similar conclusions regarding the purpose and possible audiences of our posts, so this reaffirmed my ideas regarding this genre. It does seem like the flexibility of this genre allows for a variety of different purposes, so it will definitely be possible to include my opinions regarding my argument in my post.

Considering Types

In this post, I will explain which types of arguments I might use for Project 4. In addition, I will explain, which ones I will not use.

Chiltepinster, "Mocking Bird Argument." 06/26/11 via Pixabay. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

For this project, I might choose to write either a position or causal argument. A position argument would allow me to thoroughly evaluate the issue and inform my readers of this debate. It would also allow me to input my own ideas and opinions, which would allow me to address all significant parts of my debate. A causal argument could also be effective here in identifying a cause for the controversy surrounding the issue. As the reading says, "By pointing to the cause, you are able to also help your audience understand the possible solutions to your controversy as well" (414). This might help me pinpoint exactly what is so controversial here and why it is so important to solve this issue.

In this case, an evaluative, proposal, or refutation argument might not work very well. Because this technology is so new and controversial, no solution has really be proposed to evaluate. Also due to this, it would be difficult to propose any simple solution that my audience would be able to understand. Similarly, a refutation argument might be difficult for my audience to understand, especially if they are not very familiar with the issue under debate.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Sam's post on her Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types, as well as Chelsea's post on her Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types. Both of them did a great job matching their argument types with their rhetorical action plans. They both narrowed down their audiences, chose their genres based on this, and then chose their argument types based what they are arguing and whom they are arguing for. I think this strategy is very effective, and it is something I did as well with my own planning. I did realize that their audiences/genres were a little more specific than mine, so this might be something that I'll need to work on as I continue with this project. Overall, however, I am happy with how my own blog posts turned out.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In this blog post, I will outline my rhetorical action plan for Project 4 by answering questions regarding my audience, genre, and responses/actions I expect from my argument. These questions can be found in Writing Public Lives pages 412-413.

geralt, "Business Idea Planning Business Plan Business." March 2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

Audience

• Knowledge: My audience probably knows the very basics of this controversy. They likely know what stem cells are, possibly due to some media attention from popular news sources. However, this audience likely does not know the scientific specifics of this technology. They also might not know the details of this particular controversy involving genetic engineering of human embryos. Because of their limited knowledge of the topic, they might have a vague understanding of which side of the controversy their opinions might lie, but they may not be completely sure of their beliefs.
• Values: My audience might have beliefs that make their opinions lie on either side of this controversy. However, I think it would be fair to assume that the audience collectively believes in the value of science, and supports more research in curing life-threatening diseases. Their values might differ further depending on which side of the debate they choose to support.
• Standards of Argument: This audience might not be persuaded by very scientific arguments/evidence that is difficult to understand. However, evidence that is condensed down to certain statistics or narratives might be persuasive and easier for this audience to understand.
• Visual Elements: This audience will not be persuaded by scientific diagrams or visual representations, because they may not be able to understand these visual elements. However, they might be persuaded by pictures that show some emotional appeal, since these are easy to communicate and understand. Simple graphs and tables might also be logically appealing, as long as they are not too dense.
• Purpose: My audience might be reading my argument to get a better understanding of this controversy and/or of my perspective in particular. Because of this, my main goal of this argument might be to expand the audience's understanding of this debate, and of why my perspective is more compelling in particular. Furthermore, I want to try to motivate them to at least take an active position in this debate by posting on social media about it or reading to increase their own understanding. This might motivate my audience to further their own knowledge on the subject.

Genre: News article in a well-known nonscientific online publication

• Function: This genre is mainly used for informative purposes. However, if I published an article in a relatively opinionated publication, or in the opinions column of such a publication, this genre can be used to both inform and persuade a particular audience. In this way, it would be effective for this particular audience, given that they don't have much prior knowledge of this subject.
• Setting: This genre could be used in many different online news publications without much of a scientific background. Because of its broad appeal to people without much knowledge on the subject, the setting is very broad, allowing a broader audience to have access to it.
• Visual Elements: This genre might use some pictures, perhaps with an emotional appeal. It might also use some simple graphs and tables that are placed in a manner that helps me prove a certain point.
• Style: This style might be semi-formal, as it falls somewhere between informal and formal. The diction should be easy to understand and the tone should keep the reader's interest, but it should not be so informal that it makes the reader questions its credibility.

Examples: Example 1, Example 2

Genre: Blog post in a reader friendly blog

• Function: This genre is mainly used as a way to communicate opinions and interests. Depending on the nature of the blog, this genre is generally open to anyone with an interest in the subject, although it does depend on the blog. The blog post that I would write for this project would assume some prior knowledge, but still be accessible to a wide audience.
• Setting: This genre can be used in a very wide setting. Blogs can be as general or specific as the writer wants it to be, so this genre can be used in many places. Generally it is used in more informal settings, though.
• Visual Elements: This genre tends to use more pictures, depending on the nature of the blog. Relevant pictures are common elements, while graphs and tables might be less common for this genre.
• Style: The style of this genre is very informal, as it uses informal diction and tone to appeal to its audience. It can sometimes be conversational so that it appeals to the reader a little more.

Examples: Example 1, Example 2

Responses/Actions

• Positive Support: 

1. Increased awareness and interest in the topic
2. Supportive social media posts
3. Public support for the technology through petitions, etc.

• Negative Rebuttals

1. Ethical argument in opposition of technology
2. Safety concerns 
3. The concern for designer babies

• I might respond to the ethical argument by pointing out that the embryos being experimented on are specifically the kind that would not be able to potentially grow and be born, due to a mutation. In addition, these embryos are willingly donated in the name of research, which should ease ethical concerns. In response to the safety concerns, I would point out that more research is currently being done to advance the technology to the point that we could actually experiment on embryos. Scientists agree that the technology isn't yet advanced enough to use on embryos. Finally, I would argue that designer babies are not yet a real concern, because the science is not yet nearly advanced enough to even consider altering babies' genetic codes.
• I want to raise awareness about this topic in relatively nonscientific communities. This could potentially cause increased interest, which could lead to more social media attention for the topic. This could eventually cause public movements such as petitions and other such movements.

Analyzing Purpose

This blog post will analyze the purpose of my argument using the instructions detailed in Writing Public Lives page 326.

geralt, "Think Thinking Hand Reflect Light Bulb." Feb. 2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

1. The goal of my public argument will be to raise awareness about this controversy in an audience that has not usually been addressed in other public speech acts. In particular, I want to raise awareness amongst people who are not usually very interested in science, in order to show them why they should care about this debate. I also want to focus on possible positive outcomes of this technology. Most other public speech acts have focused on the negative side of this technology, either by demonstrating the harm it could to or by refuting the aforementioned argument. I want my argument to argue for this technology by showing the good that it could do, rather than the bad. This might prove beneficial in making my audience interested in the topic.

2. Plausible Actions/Reactions

• Increased interest in the topic
• Social media posts to raise awareness (Twitter, blogs, etc.)
• Petitions to continue research
• Further research on the topic

Not Plausible

• Scientific research on the topic (in person)
• Active protesting/lobbying
• Reading scientific papers to understand the topic

3. Increased interest in this topic might motivate some people to act on the topic. This could lead to further discussions through social media and other outlets of public opinion. In turn, this would raise awareness about the issue, which might motivate others to also become interested and act in favor of the technology. In this way, this plausible action repeats itself with different audiences.

4. Because I am not aiming to write a very scientific text, my audience will likely be composed of people who have little or no knowledge of this issue. While these people would have to be somewhat educated to understand the issue, they could include anyone from high school graduates to college students. I want this text to be accessible to anyone with moderate levels of education, since I have noticed that a lot of related texts are not aimed at people who are uninformed of the subject. In order to write for this audience, I will have to adjust my tone accordingly. This will allow me to effectively communicate with this audience.

Analyzing Context

In this post, I will analyze the context of my chosen controversy for Project 4. I will do this by answering the questions on Writing Public Lives page 340.

geralt, "Problem Analysis Solution Magnifying Glass Text." Oct. 2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?

This debate regarding stem cell research on human embryos has two broad perspectives, one of which does approve of this research, and another that does not. The perspective that supports this research is a relatively scientific perspective. People with this perspective argue that this type of research is necessary in order to advance the scientific field, and stem cell research in particular. People with the opposing perspective mostly come from an ethical viewpoint, and argue that it is unethical to experiment on human embryos.

2. What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?

The major disagreement between these perspectives has to do with the use of human embryos in this type of gene-editing technology. While people who support this experimentation believe that human embryos' genetic codes should be edited for research, the opposition sees major problems with this. In particular, this perspective cites ethical and safety concerns regarding this procedure.

3. What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?

These perspectives both probably agree that scientific advancement is important for curing diseases such as beta thalssemia, the blood disorder at the focus of this controversy. However, they believe in different ways to cure these diseases. The supporters want to continue with this stem cell research, while the opponents do not want to continue with this type of research.

4. What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?

The supporters of this experimentation hold a strong belief in scientific advancement for the sake of the greater good. The opponents probably hold a similar belief, but have a stronger belief in the value of human life. This perspective would not sacrifice what they see as a human life for the "greater good" of scientific progress.

5. What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?

The supporters are asking their audience to take a stand in favor of this experimentation. The more scientific texts are encouraging scientists to further pursue this research, while the texts aimed at a slightly less scientific audiences encourage readers to simply take a stand for the experiments through platforms such as social media. For instance, this article demonstrates a perspective that supports this science.

The opponents are asking their scientific audiences to temporarily (or permanently) halt such scientific procedures until better safety/ethical standards are conceived. They are asking their less scientific audiences to again take a stand against this through platforms such as social media as well. For example, in this blog post an ethicist encourages the audience to be critical of studies like this due to ethical oversights they might stem from.

6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?

The perspective in favor of this type of scientific experimentation is most useful in supporting my argument. Because I plan to also argue in favor of this, it will be useful to see what previous arguments have used as evidence. While I am not arguing against this procedure, it will also be useful to see what the other perspective is using as evidence, possibly to refute their arguments.

7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?

The ethical perspective against this scientific testing will probably be the greatest threat to my argument. This is because not a lot can be said against ethical arguments, and there isn't any evidence I can call forth to refute their arguments. Ethics is mostly an issue of beliefs, and there is not much I could say to disprove their arguments.

Reflection

For this reflection, I read Andrea and Mira's blog posts. Both of them had really well-developed blog posts that clearly answered the questions about context. I found it interesting that they were both able to identify some ideological common ground between them. Although each perspective in their debates seemed very different, they clearly showed that they have significant ideological overlaps. This helped me realize how important these points of agreement could prove to be in my own debate, as drawing on these could really strengthen my own argument as well.

Audience and Genre

This blog post will identify two audiences that Project 3 might be aimed towards, as well as different places I might choose to publish my research based on this.

Martin H., "The Caxton Celebration - William Caxton showing specimens of his printing to King Edward IV and his Queen." n.d. via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain License.

Audience 1: College educated individuals with an interest in scientific discovery

This group of people, although perhaps not formally a part of the scientific community, are likely to be interested in new scientific discoveries and debates. Because the topic of my controversy is about ethics and safety issues as well as scientific technology, it is still accessible to those who are educated, even if they do not practice in the scientific field. This group of people is likely to be interested in any controversial issue emerging from science, even if they merely stumble across an article like mine.

Places for Publication:

1. An informative article in a well-known online news publication

An article in a well-known online news publication is accessible to anyone who is interested in current events, whether it is scientific in nature or not. These news publications are often aimed at educated individuals with a variety of interests. An article about this topic published in one of these publications would allow a wider audience to become informed of my research, rather than just scientific experts. However, I would have to be sure to write in a manner that is comprehensible for a wide audience like this.

Examples:

Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns

Chinese Gene-Editing Experiment Creeps Out Scientists

2. A blog post in a blog focused on science

This audience would likely search for information in more informal news sources as well, such as blogs. This type of blog adopts an informal tone about a relatively academic subject, allowing educated people without much scientific background to also learn about the subject. However, these blog posts are also likely to be opinionated, so people with different opinions will likely go to different blogs.

Examples:

Welcome to the Unpredictable Era of Editing Human Embryos

The Ethical Divide of Embryo Editing

Audience 2: Scientific experts who work in the field

While the former audience was possibly less informed of this topic, this audience is likely already informed about the controversy and technology in question. Thus, they would interested in my project if it contributes more to their knowledge. Because they already know quite a bit about this controversy, they are probably more comfortable with more scientific texts.

Places for Publication:

1. An article in a scientific news source

An article published in a news source that specializes in science-related news would be more accessible for this audience. This type of article is probably more scientific in that it may use more scientific jargon, which narrows the target audience to this audience.

Examples:

World's first genetic modification of human embryos reported: Experts consider ethics

Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos

2. An entry in a scientific journal

Seeing as most people who read scientific journals are a part of a given scientific field, this audience is likely to obtain much of its information from these types of scholarly journals. Again, these journals are generally not meant to be accessible for a wide audience, as they are specifically targeted towards scientific experts and researchers. Because of this, this type of publication would considerably narrow the target audience.

Examples:

Genetic Modification of Preimplantation Embryos: Toward Adequate Human Research Policies

CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes