1. Gareth Snow addresses every outcome as it pertains to the specific work he is presenting, this is after initially listing out the formal outcomes for the class. In every section, Snow states what outcomes he is arguing for, then specifically addresses each one and an example of how his work meets that goal. The outcomes definitely weren’t integrated creatively, but Snow is extremely effective in showing his use of the outcomes rather than just telling the reader.

2. The portfolio provides several forms of evidence such as: a power point presentation, his other works not published on the portfolio, and links within the portfolio for prompts. These assist us in discovering the background to the portfolio since we were not present in the class.

3. Gareth’s use of logical appeal is abundant throughout his portfolio. Key rhetorical strategies are aimed more towards informing rather than persuading. He does not beg the question; links are available at every turn to back up his claims. He stays on target throughout his portfolio, without going off on tangents or getting carried away with rhetorical strategies. We believe his use of information is his most effective tactic in the portfolio, as it’s hard to dispute his claims when his evidence link is hovering ominously in the margin. Gareth addresses his audience in a very objective way, without skewing things or appealing to bias. He puts his claim on the table along with his evidence in a ‘take it or leave it’ mentality, which we find to be particularly effective. In instances like this, the audience is more inclined to accept his claim when he’s not attempting to force it upon them. Site design is basic but well organized; it gets the job done and is very user friendly.

4. Garreth’s writing style, especially in his conclusion, was really verbose and confusing. While this might appeal to an academic audience, it was difficult to read and understand. He could fix this by simply toning down his writing, using fewer big words, and generally simplifying things. Also, while his arguments for the claims were persuasive, by the time I had gotten to read them, I’d forgotten what they were, and thus they were not as effective. All he needs to do there is put his translation of the outcomes at the top of each paragraph or something like that. The last thing that really could use fixing was just the general organization of his site– sometimes he put the prompt on the page twice, sometimes he didn’t put up Jentery’s response to it, etc. He should have just put one of each thing in once, in the same place, and made sure each part was there every time.

5. From this portfolio, we learned that adding in your own personal tone can help to make the portfolio more personable. The way that Gareth writes is very direct and he tries to have a theme, but throughout his portfolio he fails to make the page interesting. So, in the service of our portfolios, we can add our own charcter and tone so that the reader wants to actually read it.

Gareth’s use of logical appeal is abundant throughout his portfolio. Key rhetorical strategies are aimed more towards informing rather than persuading. He does not beg the question; links are available at every turn to back up his claims. He stays on target throughout his portfolio, without going off on tangents or getting carried away with rhetorical strategies. We believe his use of information is his most effective tactic in the portfolio, as it’s hard to dispute his claims when his evidence link is hovering ominously in the margin. Gareth addresses his audience in a very objective way, without skewing things or appealing to bias. He puts his claim on the table along with his evidence in a ‘take it or leave it’ mentality, which we find to be particularly effective. In instances like this, the audience is more inclined to accept his claim when he’s not attempting to force it upon them. Site design is basic but well organized; it gets the job done and is very user friendly.

1. The portfolio addresses course outcomes by being extremely specific; each outcome is a tag which she addresses specifically in each response. The outcomes are spelled out from the course syllabus, and she responds to each, explaining how she fulfilled them. We don’t find this to be particularly creative- it is very straight forward. The outcomes are told to the audience first, and then shown how they are fulfilled.

2. The portfolio provides evidence from her writing and Jentery’s feedback.  She quotes  lines directly, and often provides examples of her writing before and after revision. Her responses are also available as artifacts on the portfolio.

3. The rhetorical strategies which were most effective included her writing style (her writing and organization was extremely meticulous and uniformly laid out), her use of examples in her writing and the easy to read format of her portfolio.

4. 1. Her theme could have been more tangible (we didn’t really see one). It would have made reading it more interesting.

2.  Her writing style could have been more creative or light hearted. Right now the portfolio is extremely plain and down to business, there was nothing which drew the audience in and made us want to keep reading.

3…

5. We learned about the importance of theme and creativity. It makes for a much more enjoyable read. Good organization also appears to be essential for a portfolio. Sarah’s was extremely easy to follow, even if it wasn’t the most exciting read.

6. 3.2; it covers all the bases, but isn’t super creative.

(1) Jessica Vu addresses the course outcomes directly. She paraphrases them and says how the themes of the course were used to fulfill the outcomes.

(2) Vu includes the prompts for the paper, her original drafts, Jentery’s letters, and her final drafts at attachments. She contextualizes the assignments within the course so readers can understand what each paper is about. Including these documents allows readers to see the progression of her work, including how she incorporated Jentery’s suggestions. In her explanatory paragraphs, she also gives concrete examples of how she fulfilled the outcomes, often quoting her paper, so the reader doesn’t have to make these conclusions for him/herself.

(3) Organization – she clearly labels sections as being about a specific outcome, so it’s very easy to read and see what point she’s trying to make. Language – she speaks neither too casually nor too informally, so she’s credible without being hard to understand. Use of evidence – makes her persuasive.

(4)

(5) Organization – including a general introduction, then labeling sections as being about “Outcome 1” or “Outcome 2” is very clear and helps the reader understand where you’re going. Contextualizing – Vu argues not only that the papers not only fulfill the course outcomes but also address the main theme of the course. Quotes – giving quotes from your own paper to show what was lacking in your first paper, what Jentery specifically told you to change, and how you addressed these suggestions in your final paper is very effective. Also, it’s good to attach not only your final paper but also the original, unrevised version and Jentery’s suggestions.

(6) 3.6

1.

• attached course outcomes page
• summarized the outcomes in his own words (intro. page)
• explicitly states how he met the course outcomes for each of his papers

2.

• provides examples from his papers
• sometimes uses outside text from readings
• uses peer and teacher reviews

3.

• consistent site design
• uses evidence to prove his point
• academic tone
• addresses the audience of his 131 peers

4

• use theme more effectively
• expand on ideas
• define words the audience isn’t likely to know

5.

• consistently support our ideas with evidence
• consistent/noticeable theme
• describe how outcomes were met

6. We would give this portfolio a 3.7 because it supports it’s claim and has few weaknesses!

What type of evidence does the portfolio provide? To what effects?

The portfolio provides several forms of evidence such as: a power point presentation, his other works not published on the portfolio, and links within the portfolio for prompts. These assist us in discovering the background to the portfolio since we were not present in the class.

4. Garreth’s writing style, especially in his conclusion, was really verbose and confusing. While this might appeal to an academic audience, it was difficult to read and understand. He could fix this by simply toning down his writing, using fewer big words, and generally simplifying things. Also, while his arguments for the claims were persuasive, by the time I had gotten to read them, I’d forgotten what they were, and thus they were not as effective. All he needs to do there is put his translation of the outcomes at the top of each paragraph or something like that. The last thing that really could use fixing was just the general organization of his site– sometimes he put the prompt on the page twice, sometimes he didn’t put up Jentery’s response to it, etc. He should have just put one of each thing in once, in the same place, and made sure each part was there every time.

5. From this portfolio, we learned that adding in your own personal tone can help to make the portfolio more personable. The way that Gareth writes is very direct and he tries to have a theme, but throughout his portfolio he fails to make the page interesting. So, in the service of our portfolios, we can add our own charcter and tone so that the reader wants to actually read it.

Here are some example major papers from last year’s second sequence. As I mentioned in class, these students did not have the opportunity of having examples. Accordingly, consider these launching pads into your own work.

Please also note that these papers emerge from varying degrees of revision. Read for potential lines of inquiry and expandable ideas. Indeed, read for how they approached the prompt and how their approach might be augmented.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Let me know what questions you have!