Kutztown University of Pennsylvania Textual Communication Discussion

This is the third of three mini-reviews that you will complete as you work towards writing your “Rhetorical Review.” As discussed on the “Rhetorical Review” assignment sheet, a review is more than a summary of the content; it’s also a critical analysis of the text and your reactions to it. Therefore, the mini-reviews should include both summary and evaluation. You should consider not just what it says, but also how it says it.

Similar to the previous mini-reviews, this one should be 300-400 words. This is not a lot of space to summarize and evaluate, but that is the point. The purpose here is to be concise and specific with your words so that by the time you begin writing your “Rhetorical Review,” your ideas will be edited, exact, and refined.

Step 1:

For this discussion, you should begin by comparing and contrasting the first two texts you already discussed for Mini-review 1 and Mini-review 2. Are these texts communicating similar or different messages, and in what ways? Based on your evaluations, are these two texts using similar or different strategies to reach their intended audiences?

Then, introduce your third text, explaining how this text fits into your evaluation of the other two. Specifically, what strategies can you identify in this third text that is similar to or different from the other two texts? Does one text help you to more fully understand the others? Do you find one text more/less appropriate for an ENC 1101 book?

Since you only have 300-400 words, you should focus specifically on the aspects of the texts that seem the most significant to how effectively the texts communicate their messages to its intended audience.

Step 2:

After you have posted, you should read over other students’ responses and comment on 2 other posts. You can comment on any person’s post, not just someone who is responding to the same text as you. Please comment by:

• Finding someone who brings up something in their evaluation that you did not discuss in your own and commenting on what you find interesting and/or surprising about their post.
• Finding someone who brings up something in their evaluation that you did discuss in yours and commenting on whether your evaluations were similar or different from one another. (For example, you and your peer might have both addressed the organization of a text; however, this does not mean that you came to the same conclusions about the organization.) What are the specific similarities and/or differences between your discussions?