Brittany Coughlin

Senior Seminar: Evaluating Writing

Cover Memo
The Core Values are a set of guidelines set by the Department of Writing Arts faculty, for the
Department of Writing Arts students. The set of nine covers everything from the technical plane
to the ethical plane of writing. Each core values offers something that all majors should know
and keep in mind when writing anything, but are the secret of our Department. I was first
introduced to the concept of Core Values in Intensive College Composition I. The set of seven
guidelines for the first year writing program were the words I lived by for College Composition I
and II. When I came to Rowan, my major was Secondary Education and English, and I did not
take Introduction to Writing Arts until after I made the switch to Writing Arts my sophomore
year. That semester I was introduced to the real core values to live by as a writer. I have used
them in many of my Writing Arts course since then, but I knew that Evaluating Writing would be
where they would really come in handy.
Evaluating Writing was a difficult course, and really challenged me as an evaluative writer, and
as a student. This course called for me to be organized and responsible, but even as hard as I
tried Im still missing: peer reviewed drafts from Nicole Maupai for mini-analyses four, five or
six. One of those days, she was absent due to a personal emergency. The other two times, she
said she wasnt able to print and would email me my draft with comments, but never did. When
Brianne and I switched our analysis papers, I only had an electronic version available. She used
the comment option in the review feature of word to makes notes. Unfortunately, I was not
thinking when I started editing the drafted she peer reviewed in the same document. In other
words, I deleted the comments forever. As soon as I realized what I was doing, I opened a new
document, and saved the version with Briannes comments on it separately. Additionally, I had
to recreate the rubrics for mini-analyses one, three, and five because I originally printed them in
blue ink and 8-point font, so I transcribed the values from the originals to black, 12-point
versions. I recreated, from Nicole Ss hand-written notes, the rubric for mini-analysis four
because I was not able to print one at all. As for the rubric Brianne filled out, she did so on the
computer by bolding her choices; I printed a clean copy and marked her choices. All that is
included in my physical portfolio are all the documents required for mini-analyses one through
six (peer reviewed drafts, and rubrics). My cover memo, the presentation draft of my analysis
paper, and my annotated bibliography were emailed to Dr. Kopp, and they exist independently
on my website: here.[1] For the purpose of this cover memo I will focus on mini-analyses two
(close reading), and four (audience analysis) and five (genre analysis).
Close-reading is my favorite method, by far. Though I was not new to close-reading, I wasnt
well versed in it either. As a tutor, and a writer, being a close reader only helps. Reading Whites
close-reading of The Little Mermaid, disgusted me in many senses, but also really got me into the
method. Her ability to reveal everything, just by focusing on whats in front of her: amazing.
Close-reading leaves me wondering a lot about my education up until this point: have I been an
ethical reader? Have I been an ethical writer? What could I learn if I did a close-reading on my
essay from earlier semesters? Or from high school? Close-reading is one of those methods thats
not specific to any one discipline. Evaluators can, and have, performed close-readings on a
variety of artifacts. core value three has taught me to demonstrate the ability to critically read

[1] http://brittanycoughlin.weebly.com/evaluating-writing-dr-d-kopp-portfolio.html

complex and sophisticated texts in a variety of subjects, and close-reading gives any and
everyone the ability to do just that. As a tutor, Im constantly presented with papers written for
subjects Im not familiar with, but I am able to adapt rhetorically through my ability of closereading, which is what core value three and two (the ability to critically read complex and
sophisticated texts in a variety of subjects) have taught me. Gallop did not present the only
method that has directly connected to a core value.
Core value one taught me that with genre comes a set of conventions by which artifacts are
evaluated against to determine what their genres are. Foss prefaces our fifth method, genre
analysis, which explains what genre is, how it functions, and how we can understand it from an
evaluative perspective. I think in terms of categories. I do not mean to be rude, but I want a noun,
or adjective, for every person, place, thing, trait, and concept. I like be able to talk about things
as concisely and accurately as possible. Though Foss does not offer concise and accurate terms
for all aspects of genre, she gave me the vocabulary that starts picking it apart. I chose to
evaluate American Horror Story season 4 (Freakshow) episode 4 (Edward Mordrake part II)
for mini-analysis five. My sufficient rationale was that a particular scene when the villain of
the show is humanized instantly broke all the rules of the genre the show participates in.
Intrigued, I recycled mini-analysis for my analysis paper to continue investigating and evaluating
the scene, as core value four tells me to do, in order to discover something deeper. The second
half of core value one taught me after being able to distinguish different genre conventions, I
must learn how to apply them to my own writing. In doing so, I learn how to be rhetorically
adaptive. As prepared as I thought I was for the end of the semester, I was actually far less than I
could have imagined I was.
The analysis was the hardest assignment, but not only because it was the most important.
Because I was using a recycled artifact, I did not know how to start over entirely. Because I had
written several pages for the mini analysis already.
At first, I copied and pasted the body of my mini-analysis five into a new document. I read
through it once with the draft Nicole S. commented on, and made corrections based on her
suggestions. Then I read through what I had and beefed up explanations of the methods, but
deleted a lot of the unnecessary description. The problem with draft one of my analysis is that it
had a lot of filler words, and not a lot of real substance. Unfortunately, I didnt craft a
sophisticated enough sufficient rationale in the first place to carry my analysis through eight
pages. I realized I had lost my sufficient rationale, and in doing so lost my purpose for writing
the analysis. Distraught, I could not revise for a second draft sufficiently enough, in my opinion,
before our group conference.
I ran into many obstacles leading up to the conference. The biggest problem is I thought I had
emailed a copy of my second draft to my group, but I did not successfully attach it. Once I
realized, I only had 15 minutes, and I was equidistant between my house and Kopps office. I
made the decision to run home, email the attachment and have my boyfriend drive me over to the
light near Hawthorn. No one was able to read it, and no one commented on it in a physical sense,
but I am glad that is the decision I made. The other problem I ran into with draft two was that I
had between the end of class Tuesday afternoon, and Thursday morning to work on a second
draft. Unfortunately, I am in class and at work for nine hours straight on Wednesdays, so I did

[1] http://brittanycoughlin.weebly.com/evaluating-writing-dr-d-kopp-portfolio.html

not have much time to dedicate to in depth revision. Knowing this is no excuse, I revised in the
most major way I thought too in a limited timeframe. Draft two is rough, really rough. I bulleted:
situational requirements, organizing principle, substantive and stylistic feature, and aesthetic
emotion/audience analysis, and arranged parts of draft one appropriately. I cut out most of the
description, and was not left with much. I did this because the biggest criticism for draft one was
that it was organized, like, at all. Though core value eight taught me to be familiar with the
current standards and dynamic nature of grammar, mechanics, and usage and will be able to
apply them appropriately, I could not outline a coherent argument effectively.
Thats what I worked on for my third draft. In mini-analysis five and my analysis paper, I was
overly ambitious. While I narrowed down my scope of evaluation by picking one scene from
American Horror Story: Freakshow, I did nothing to narrow my scope otherwise. I attempted to
evaluate the scene against horror, suspense, mystery, thriller, and science fiction. For my analysis
paper, I stuck with that, but also added in audience analysis, structural analysis and closereading. I tried to accomplish so much that I was not able to accomplish anything. Partnering
with Brianne in the last workshop for our analysis paper was extremely helpful. She offered a lot
of advice that targeted where I could delve deeper. She also made me aware that the reason my
argument was so incomplete was partially due to my implicit logic. For the presentation draft of
my analysis, I worked to make explicit connections, and coherent arguments.
My blatant disregard for the cleanest cut of the core values made me question if I had abandoned
any other core values and I had. Core value five has taught me to be open to suggestion, but
appropriately defensive of my voice, style, and ideas. When dealing with mini-analysis five, I
found myself resisting the method: audience analysis. I started realizing where my resistance
comes from after submitting my portfolio for Writing with Style. The only audience I have ever
really been concerned with is my professor. Before being a Writing Arts major, the only people
who would ever read my writing would be my teachers. My senior year, a creative writing
teacher convinced me to produced a short poetry film, to present at the end of our National Day
on Poetry celebration. I only agree for her, but was horribly embarrassed as I heard my vice play
back over huge speakers. Since then, I was reluctant to share my writing or my opinions of
writing. When I became a writing center tutor was when I really acknowledged that criticism is
not inherently bad, and there a proper way to deliver critical remarks so that they are
constructive.
Overall, Evaluating Writing was an essential stop on my road to becoming a full independent. I
am still very dependent on others, but I also seriously defy this dependence. I claim to be a selfsufficient entity in all senses, but thats simply not true. I have not been alive long enough to
experience many aspects of life, such as being a car owner, or a parent, or having a permanent,
full time job, or a salary. I have never been out of the country. I have never even been off the
East Coast and I dare to think Im prepared enough to not need others help.

[1] http://brittanycoughlin.weebly.com/evaluating-writing-dr-d-kopp-portfolio.html