Dear Dr.

Bruce,
In this letter I will effectively show not only do I understand the student learning
outcomes that we were introduced in the syllabus, but have mastered them and
successfully used them in my writings. Furthermore I will demonstrate how my different
documents including my original and revised SOP, proposal, a selection of my review
paper, and a sample peer review can be analyzed to highlight the outcomes that we
wanted to learn. I have arranged these written works in order of not only completion date,
but also in the amount of SLOs they exemplify to demonstrate how my written ability
has excelled and grown through the year. By doing this, I will convince you that I as a
writer have met and even surpassed the expectations that you placed upon us students.
My first document, my SOP, was the first work that we accomplished, and as such
was one that I most heavily edited since completion. In its entirety I tackled the first SOL
of rhetorical focus. As was needed I wrote to a sophisticated audience that would be
reviewing my paper, using appropriate terms such as when I discussed lysing the DNA
plasmids. Upon editing, I expanded upon this strategy by also targeting the specific
people that I hoped to convince to instruct me further in my education, Miller and
Harland. This also meant I had to be extremely persuasive with my word choice and flow.
For example I say their work both excites and captivates me which is very convincing
and proves why I would be better then any other applicants.
The proposal is the best example of a paper that contained clear and concise
organization that allowed the reader easy access. While the difficulty of working in a
group and creating a cohesive paper cannot be overstated, we managed to do so. Once the
first draft was completed, I took the duty upon myself to edit the paper with more and
better fitting headings and subheadings, which can be seen throughout the paper. It gave
the paper a more aesthetic appeal to a reader and sanctioned the information better into
easy to comprehend groups. In doing this, it as well altered the language and diction of
the paper to be more persuasive and compelling. The paper, in its entirety, spawns a
feeling in the reader to be more agreeable with what theyre reading. This was of course
the intended affect that the group wanted to convey; to promote the idea the research we
explained was necessary. In this regards, the paper demonstrated everything the SLO
wanted and more.
In class it was made abundantly clear that ethical citation was an absolute
necessity to not only be mastered, but used whenever appropriate to refute plagiarism. If
we look at the selection of my review, we see on the page alone that I correctly use
quotation marks to signify words that are not of my origin. Furthermore each quote has
the source they are taken from referenced, and in the works cited, spelled out completely
to allow anyone to find them as they were originally published.
To complete my examples I included a peer review, one of which done on my
early SOP and another on the revised version, also included was a review that I
preformed on a fellow student to give them help and advice. Together they create an
obvious and prominent example of well-demonstrated Collaboration. My partners and I,
as you can see, heavily edit and converse to each other over both papers. In doing this we
have made both papers more appropriately written and likewise publish a paper that was
improved greatly over their original forms.

Upon first entering this class, I was not aware of how much I had to learn about
writing to improve my abilities. With each paper I either solely wrote, or co-authored, my
skills grew and advanced, and likewise my grade improved. Now as I look back on my
work, most notably the old versus new SOP, it is of no question that I am more than
proficient in the SLOs I was determined to learn.
Sincerely,
Craig Reeves