May 4, 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:
During the course of the semester we were introduced to six student
learning outcome principles which were to be implemented in our writing.
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with examples of my writing that
demonstrate how I have affectively applied the SLOs to particular
assignments.
In order to fulfill the portfolio requirements, a previous assignment
was to be revised and edited to illustrate how my understanding of the
student learning outcomes has progressed over the course of the semester. I
originally chose to analyze and revisit the Statement of Purpose, however,
plans changed. One of the biggest obstacles I deal with day to day is time
management, especially when it comes to meeting deadlines for papers. The
review article assignment was one of those assignments I dreaded doing
mostly due to my lack of interest in the subject matter and partly due to bad
habits. After now completing the review, albeit late, I feel it has become one
of my better displays of writing because I was able to apply the SLOs more
comprehensively.
The ethical citation SLO states that the author be thorough and
conform to appropriate citation methods. I have found that in the past I
always loosely followed proper citation techniques because I never fully
understood how to correctly apply them. In my review on ant rafts however,
I feel that I have diligently cited my work both in text and in the Literature
Cited portion of my paper. Seven sources were referenced in my work and
they are all listed at the end of my paper in proper Science format as well as
in-text citations that are found in every paragraph. Citing figures as well as
citing multiple authors in-text was something I was not too familiar with but
now have successfully demonstrated in my review. There are three figures
in the body of my paper which illustrate the ethical citation SLO.
Two more student learning outcomes that the review fulfills are
rhetorical focus and organization. Rhetorical focus refers mainly to the
audience the author is trying to appeal to and how the tone and form of
their work is adjusted for said audience. The ant review is a paper written
for a general scientific audience and is a formal piece that is straight to the
point. It is objective in its form which is evident particularly in the abstract
but also throughout the paper as it continuously references scientific
studies to support claims without bias. The organization of the review is
derived from an IMRAD style in that it includes an abstract, introduction,

and discussion (conclusion section) but does not conform to it completely

because I felt it was not necessary. According to the Organizing the Review
section in Writing in the Sciences, when writing a research review there is
not a standard organizational format to follow although there is a guide to
complete a thorough review. The ant review organization is based on the
trend of topics I found when reading research articles which is why I
included connectivity, buoyancy, and organization as my topic headers in the
body.
Finally, this letter itself fulfills the last three SLOs. In a sense I feel
the cover letter was an assignment meant to convince you that we
comprehend and can successfully apply the student learning outcomes. If I
succeed in this then I will have met the persuasion SLO by supporting the
claims I made about the review with the examples and evidence stated. The
language and design SLO is evident throughout this letter and my review.
Lastly the collaboration SLO was met after receiving a critique of this letter
by my classmate and reassessing my work according to her suggestions. It
is no question that the SLOs have greatly improved my writing.

With appreciation,
Jonathon Toro