Reflection on Project 1 Draft

In this post, I reflect on the audience and context of my QRG. During the peer review process, I reviewed Samantha Walker's draft and Chloe Durand's draft. I will use this peer review process to reflect on my own QRG.

SEO, "Is Your Writing Engaging?" 06/08/10 via flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike License.

Audience

• Who is going to be reading this document?: This document will primarily be read by my classmates and my instructor.
• What are their values and expectations?: My audience expects to read a well-written QRG that adequately explains both sides of my controversy. They expect this QRG to be brief, concise, and explanatory. I think I do explain the arguments in my controversy, but I do need to work on being as brief and concise as possible throughout the QRG.
• How much information do I need to give my audience?: My topic is very scientific, as it has to do with biotechnology. Because most people will not be experts on the field, I need to provide enough context about the controversy for everyone to get the gist of the issue. Although this doesn't mean that I have to explain every aspect of the science thoroughly, I do need to make sure I provide enough information for people with different backgrounds and interests to understand.
• What kind of language is suitable for this audience?: Because the QRG is meant to be relatively informal, it would make sense to stay away from using very formal diction. In addition, I want to make sure I don't use scientific jargon that would confuse the reader. I think the best approach here would be to use language that any college student would be able to comprehend.
• What tone should I use with my audience? Do I use this tone consistently?: The tone of this document should be professional but not formal. This is not an essay, so I don't need to use a very formal tone. At the same time, this document is not something that I would put on social media, so it can't be too informal. The tone should consistently create a balance between a formal and informal tone.

Context

• What are the formatting requirements of the assignment? Do I meet them?: The assignment requires that I write using the format of a QRG. After comparing my draft to the conventions of the QRG, it seems like I follow all of the requirements. I include subheadings, images, hyperlinks, and the other conventions listed.
• What are the content requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?: The content requirements for this project can be found on the grading rubric. The requirements include providing relevant background information, political/cultural context, an evaluation of the credibility of sources, and other such information. I think I provide sufficient background information and I provide information about both sides of the argument. However, I think I could add analysis about the credibility of the sources, and I could tie it in to the current political/cultural climate as a whole.
• Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in this class in addition to my own ideas and voice?: I think this draft reflects a lot of what I've learned about the QRG genre. I tried to incorporate all of the conventions we were taught in this class into my draft. It also reflects the analysis of credibility that we were taught in class; however, I realize that I could do more to elaborate on that credibility. I tried to communicate my own voice through the tone of the paper, but I think my voice sometimes get lost in the paper. This is again something I need to work on.
• Have I addressed any grammatical issues that my teacher highlighted in class or in my previously-graded assignments?: I haven't had any graded assignments that comment on my grammatical issues yet, but I hope I addressed most of the grammatical problems while I was revising my own writing. Hopefully my peers will be able to point out more issues while they are reviewing my draft.