Reflection of Project 1 Draft

An Honest Reflection on My Quick Reference Guide Draft

In this post, I examine what I learned about my draft through the peer editing process. So far, I have examined other drafts by Brandon, who wrote about genome sequencing and the ethical debate surrounding the issue, and by Dylan, whose QRG was about the Oscars and the racist controversy over its nominations given that the critically-acclaimed movie Selma was not represented well at the Oscars. I learned more about important aspects of the QRG genre in peer editing their works, and now I will reflect upon my own draft, which has been peer edited as well.

flyupmike "Glass Water Sky Live Reflection" October 2014 via pixabay.com.
CC0 Public Domain License.

Below are my responses to the sections on a draft's "Audience" and "Context" from the Student's Guide to First Year Writing.

Audience

• My instructor, who will be grading my Quick Reference Guide, and my classmates, who have been peer editing it in its drafting stages, will be reading my Quick Reference Guide. However, as the conventions of the QRG genre hold, I have written my QRG in an informative style that is targeted at people who are looking to know more about the controversy over Chinese National Science Awards, but may have absolutely no knowledge on the topic.

• The expectations of an uninformed reader looking for information on this controversy are that my QRG should provide all the necessary information they need in order to understand the origins of the controversy in China, how the controversy developed, who the groups involved are, and how the controversy fits into a larger, more meaningful picture of China's actions in the world today. I think I am addressing these needs well, as I ensured I paid special attention to describing and informing the reader on how the controversy grew, and what implications it has for more global issues and trends worldwide.

• Given the fact that my controversy is fairly esoteric to American readers, as its about a national science award in China, I assume that readers of my QRG will have no prior knowledge on the subject. With this in mind, I realized that I needed to completely portray my topic in an informative way that establishes the foundations of the controversy, namely the MetaOS project created by Zhang Yaoxue and his team, and then builds from there to discuss the Chinese Government and its worldwide policy.

• I believe that formal, academic language is suitable for the audience who my QRG is designed for. However, as the QRG genre allows, I think that I do have some room to work with, meaning that I could sacrifice some formality in my writing for a more clear illustration of my subject if that is what I deem necessary. Despite this capability, though, I think I will try to use as much formal academic writing as I can without too much heightened vocabulary, as I find that is the writing style that will allow me to do the best job I can in informing the reader.

• As mentioned above, I think it will be best if I assume an academic, measured tone in my writing. As my controversy topic is based in another country, I don't want to risk sounding biased based on my own nationality and opinions on the world, so I think that a strictly academic tone will be my best choice in remaining fair to the topic and those groups involved in the controversy. From what my peer editors wrote in response to my draft, I think I successfully sustained this academic tone throughout my writing of my QRG - however, the main focus I must see to in revision is making sure that my QRG remains interesting and easy to read.

Context

• The formatting requirements of the Quick Reference Guide genre are a blend of essay and blog post format. QRG is defined largely by its subheadings, short and concise paragraphs, and use of white space to encourage easy reading and even scanning of the work. I honestly believe that I used sectioning effectively in my draft, but I still think that I need to work on making my paragraphs concise and short so as to make the reading easier to digest. Additionally, I should consider the use of more visuals in my QRG as visuals may ease the stress of reading for my readers, as I have a significant amount of writing for my QRG.

• The content requirement for the QRG genre is, almost singularly, to have a composed body of writing that has the sole purpose of informing the reader. I think I actually have done well in this aspect of my draft, as I emphasized the need to provide my readers with all possible, basic knowledge on the topic while I was writing it. Though again, I do think that I could include more visual aids in my QRG to add variety to it.

• I think that my draft reflects careful analysis of the QRG genre that we have performed in class, as it operates within the conventions of the genre and imitates the style I assessed from five different examples viewed in class. I do firmly believe that I introduced some of my own ideas into my draft in establishing a larger picture for my controversy, as I drew connections in the latter half of my QRG that were related to the controversy but placed it on a larger, world scale. However, I intentionally tried not to include my own voice in my writing because I did not want to risk sounding biased, especially since my controversy takes place in another country.

• Yes, I am currently in the process of clearing up grammatical issues in my QRG draft that were pointed out by my peer editors. In addition, I plan to make my own pass on the draft after addressing my peer editors' comments for the purpose of catching any remaining errors of that nature.