November 29, 2015

Dr. Leslie Bruce

Department of English, Comparative Literature, and Linguistics
California State University, Fullerton
P.O. Box 34080
Fullerton, CA 92834-9480
Dear Dr. Bruce,
This letter has been written to address the contents of my portfolio, as well as to defend their
inclusion. I believe this collection of works demonstrates that I have mastered the six student learning
outcomes (SLOs) for this course. Six documents have been organized within my portfolio to show the
progressive acquisition of skill in my work over the course of this semester. You will find the contents of
the portfolio in this order: the rhetorical triangle from my first writers notebook entry, a writers
notebook entry addressing profile design, a peer review of my original editorial, an original editorial, and
a revised editorial.
The first document in my portfolio, a rhetorical triangle for Heal the Bays website, utilizes the
analysis of a rhetorical situation. In this writers notebook entry, I along with my group, identified the
context, message, purpose, and communicator(s) associated with this webpage. These key features of the
rhetorical triangle are necessary to develop a rhetorical focus (SLO 1). Learning how to accurately assess
a rhetorical situation set the foundation for later documents that would require the use of a rhetorical
focus throughout the duration of the course. My group made a collaborative effort to help each other
complete this informal exercise and therefore satisfied SLO 6.
My second writers notebook included in my portfolio addresses the structure and organization of
a profile. Our group collectively (SLO 6) determined the purpose and audience (SLO 1) of our profile
and subsequently created a plan to design and organize (SLO 4) our profile to effectively meet the needs
of our audience (SLO 1). We agreed to create a profile which contained elements associated with a
magazine design, including headings, photos, as well as other engaging features. Some of these features
include a photo of the LifeStraw in use on page 1, as well as a table describing the humanitarian impacts
of LifeStraw on page 4.
A peer review of my original editorial has also been included to show my use of collaboration
(SLO 6) to improve my draft before its initial submission. The peer review affirmed what I believed to be
the use of ethical citation, a feature that had been lacking earlier this semester, in my groups profile. It
also alerted me to the need to modify my paper to improve its language and design (SLO 5), as well as
develop clear and specific arguments to meet the persuasive aims of the paper. After receiving these
critiques I focused on correcting syntax and spelling errors to improve the editorials flow. My classmate
also suggested that I incorporate potential solutions into my thesis, a suggestion that I did not originally
follow. Since beginning revision I now recognize that I should have heeded this advice. This specific
feedback has since contributed the most to development of a more polished editorial.
A number the SLOs for this course are satisfied in my original editorial. While my group and I
struggled to ethically cite our sources in our profile earlier in the semester, the original editorial included
in this portfolio displays the proper and ethical citation (SLO 2) my earlier work had been missing. The

Editorial was also developed with its audience and purpose (SLO 1) in mind. Subsequently, the editorial
aims to persuade (SLO 3) the Los Angeles Times and you, Dr. Bruce, of potential water shortages in the
event of an earthquake in Los Angeles. A discussion of this nature is of great relevance to Southern
California residents. Further the paper is organized (SLO 4) to first develop a background of Los Angeles
seismic activity. Following this background the editorial addresses the nature of Los Angeles water
supply and how this supply may be affected by and earthquake. This logical progression aims to provide a
clear, persuasive argument for the reader.
My final document, a revised editorial, utilizes your feedback to improve upon weaknesses of the
original document regarding organization, rhetorical focus, persuasiveness, as well as language and
design. To provide a more clear organization (SLO 4) and aide the persuasive (SLO 3) aims of the
editorial, separate topics were assigned to their own appropriate headings. The term aqueduct was
defined in the 2nd paragraph, to better meet the needs of the audience (SLO 1). Throughout the paper a
concerted effort was made to remove or smooth awkward sentences, in an attempt to better use clear and
concise language (SLO 5). Finally, my thesis statement was reworked to include a call to action, a
suggestion made by you, Dr. Bruce, and my classmate. This revision allows the thesis to better capture
the persuasive nature of my editorial.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my portfolio.
Sincerely,
Bradford Pepping