Rhetorical Awareness & Audience Shift - Navigating Rhetorical Space
This group represents my first mission into rhetorical space—a test of how well I could shift direction, adjust my writing tools, and change course to reach different audiences. These artifacts helped me understand that writing isn’t just about saying something—it's about how, and to whom, you're saying it.
In CTR 7, I wrote a heartfelt letter to my younger sister, using a personal tone to persuade her to see writing as something more flexible than the five-paragraph essay. Then in CTR 7 Redux, I revised that message into an open letter directed at college instructors. Suddenly, my mission changed. I had to recalibrate my tone, adjust my structure, and deliver my ideas with a balance of respect, evidence, and insight. The discussion forum shows how I engaged in peer feedback during this shift—trading star maps with fellow travelers to refine my course.
These pieces helped me understand the gravity of audience, the pull of purpose, and the importance of making intentional writing decisions. This was the phase of my journey where I stopped writing for myself alone—and started navigating space for others.
Star Systems Aligned (Outcomes):
#2: Multiple Literacies and Goal Setting
#3: Variation Across Contexts
#4: Decision Making and Production
Critical Thinking Response 7
Assignment Details
For this assignment, I was asked to consider the rhetorical situation for my upcoming Module Four Project. I had to clearly identify my purpose, audience, and genre, and explain why I chose each. Then, I analyzed the conventions and expectations of the chosen genre to show my understanding of how it would effectively communicate my message. The goal was to demonstrate thoughtful planning and an awareness of how audience, purpose, and genre work together in writing.
Reflection
This was my first attempt at writing with a clear audience in mind. I wanted to explain to my younger sister why the five-paragraph essay wasn’t always the best tool for real writing. Because the audience was someone close to me, I used a conversational tone and included personal reflections. It taught me that tone is just as important as argument—especially when trying to connect on an emotional level.
It was a soft launch into rhetorical writing, and while it was meaningful, I would soon realize how much more complex things would get when the audience changed.
Feedback
Paragraph feedback
1. Purpose:
-
Clearly explained and fully addressed the assignment's question.
-
Strong rationale provided for wanting the audience to move beyond the five-paragraph essay.
2. Audience:
-
Audience choice (my younger sister) was problematic.
-
Choosing a middle school student could backfire since her teacher may still require the five-paragraph format, potentially affecting her grades.
-
Suggested that I choose a more appropriate audience.
3. Genre:
-
Letter genre was not a natural or effective choice for the audience.
-
It felt artificial since I likely wouldn’t write formal letters to my sister in real life.
-
A more authentic communication method (like conversation or text) would have been more fitting.
4. Genre Analysis:
-
Provided a good analysis but over-explained.
-
Focused too much on the persuasive aspects of a letter instead of simply identifying typical conventions (salutation, closing, conversational tone, brevity).
Main Feedback Points
-
While my purpose was strong and my explanation clear, my choice of audience and genre didn’t align well with realistic communication methods or the assignment expectations. I needed to rethink who I was writing to and how I would best reach them authentically. My genre analysis was detailed but went beyond what was necessary for the task.
Critical Thinking Response 7 Redux (Open Letter)
Assignment details
This assignment gave me a second opportunity to reflect on the rhetorical situation for my Module Four Project after receiving feedback on my original CTR 7. I was asked to reconsider and clearly explain my purpose, audience, and chosen genre for the project. Then, I needed to analyze how the features of the chosen genre (an open letter) would best communicate my message to the selected audience. This was a chance to revise and improve my earlier approach by refining the alignment between purpose, audience, and genre.
Reflection
This revision required me to completely re-plot my flight path. I took the same core argument from my letter to my sister, but now I had to present it to college instructors—an audience with authority, experience, and their own biases. I had to switch from emotional appeal to a balance of logic, credibility, and respectful persuasion.
This piece taught me how genre and audience interact. I learned how to stay true to my message while adjusting the way I delivered it—just like a pilot adjusting their approach to land on a new planet with different terrain.
Feedback
Paragraph feedback
1. Purpose:
-
Purpose (persuading instructors to move away from the five-paragraph essay) was clear and appropriate.
2. Audience:
-
Chose the wrong audience.
-
College writing instructors typically don’t teach the five-paragraph essay and instead try to help students move beyond it.
-
Recommended switching the audience to high school teachers, where the five-paragraph essay is more relevant.
3. Genre:
-
Open letter was a strong genre choice for addressing a group of educators.
-
However, genre explanation could have been clearer.
-
Suggested comparing the open letter to a business letter (if comparisons were necessary), rather than to an academic essay.
4. Genre Conventions:
-
Did not fully explain how an open letter functions.
-
Suggested to research and study actual open letters to better understand the conventions and expectations of the format.
Main Feedback Points
-
While my purpose and genre choice were both solid, the audience selection did not align with the message. I also needed to provide a clearer explanation of the open letter’s structure and tone, avoiding unnecessary comparisons to unrelated formats like academic essays.
Module 4 Peer Review (Discussion Forum)
Assignment details
For this peer review assignment, I submitted my Module Four Project draft—an open letter advocating for flexible writing instruction—and provided feedback to two classmates on their drafts. The goal was to offer thoughtful, constructive commentary addressing both content and genre conventions to help each other revise before final submission. I also received peer feedback on my own draft and an instructor comment evaluating my participation and the effectiveness of my feedback.
Reflection
This forum showed how I engaged with others in the writing process. It was like exchanging star charts—we gave feedback, offered course corrections, and helped one another refine our paths. Peer review helped me realize that writing doesn’t happen in isolation. It’s a collaborative effort, and learning to give and receive feedback helped me make more informed, intentional decisions about my own work. On this assignment specifically, it also showed that I'm not alone in my struggles. There were multiple students that had the same issue as me that I was able to help and navigate them the same direction I was pointed to
Feedback
Feedback
1. Strengths of My Draft:
-
Well-written and thoughtful open letter.
-
Strong message and clear advocacy for flexible writing instruction.
-
Effective use of figurative language and relatable metaphors (“training wheels—not the bike”).
-
Engaging tone and structure suited to the open letter genre.
2. Areas for Improvement:
-
Revise the formatting to more closely resemble how a published open letter would appear (print or digital).
-
Use the full names of scholars referenced (Nichols, Campbell, and Wesley) instead of just last names to increase credibility and clarity.
3. Feedback Given to Peers:
-
Provided insightful, specific suggestions to Bastien and Marc.
-
Encouraged both peers to strengthen their arguments and better consider audience expectations.
-
Praised effective aspects of their writing while offering practical revision ideas.
Main Feedback Points
-
The draft was praised for its content, tone, and genre execution. Minor adjustments to formatting and source attribution were recommended to polish the final version. My feedback to classmates was recognized as thoughtful and constructive, meeting the expectations for the peer review activity.
