Everybody has their niche or interests. That said, one is more successful doing things that one has interest in. Similar to life, writing conveys its points most efficiently when tailored to a specific audience.

I have actually experienced this first hand on in various contexts. First, teaching younger children how to swim, snowboard, or play soccer can be a challenge. Each sport has its different rules, movements, and concepts to be learned. Children may be visual, auditory, or physical learners. By teaching each individual student in the context that they comprehend and relate to the best, will yield the best results; plus they will have more fun!

With this “tailoring” concept in mind, I have demonstrated the skills set forth in Outcome 1 through its several critical points. Outcome 1 is defined as the student’s ability “To demonstrate an awareness of the strategies that writers use in different writing contexts”.  In simpler terms, I can tailor my writing to different audiences.

I have demonstrated this skill in several ways, in both Short Assignment 1 and Major Paper 1. My Short Assignment 1 discussed the cycling discourse community. I targeted my audience to be my ever-enthusiastic professor, Tesla Schaeffer, and others who may be interested in this piece, probably cyclists—hopefully they will not be too critical. In Major Paper 1, I targeted a professional, academic audience in my essay discussing the long-term effects of speaking a minority dialect in a harsh, critical proper English-speaking majority.

I demonstrate my ability to write for different audiences and contexts outside of the classroom in my Short Assignment 1, an analytical piece, where I metacognatively discussed the cycling community’s discourse habits. This is a community that values, “athleticism, pride, and […] roadside hazards” (1).  I recognized that my audience would range from the interested passerby to the intense and lean-macho cyclist, “The competitive cyclist is known to value commitment and pride, whereas the soulful rider rides bikes for the sake of the challenge, compassion, and simplicity of the two wheels” (1). Because this audience includes a variety of genres outside of the classrooms, I strove to write to appeal to a casual, varying audience, “Community members are generally receptive and outreaching”, implying that my targeted audience is open-minded, therefore my work is open for interpretation, even the more controversial sections (1).

I utilized various aspects of writing to engage my readers.  Avoiding disengaging readers, I maintained a neutral tone utilized common terminology. I left a buffer zone, as exemplified by my use of universally understood conventions, “’on your right’, ‘passing’, ‘ruts’” (4). I maintained a conversational tone in discussing various aspects of this discourse community, where “communicating through a variety of genres, most audiences are reached”, in hopes of appealing to the more technology-oriented part of my audience.  To ensure productivity of this piece, I utilized casual conversational action words to state emphases, “Novices are often distinguished by lack of technical term usage […] [whereas] professional cycling conveys a materialistic image” (6). Lastly, I appealed to my audience with a personal account of my experience both as an outsider and member of the cycling discourse community, “Although I belong within this community, I distinctly remember being on the outside for seventeen years, […] intrigued by the two-wheeled peloton that passed home every Saturday morning. It always emitted a sense of mystery” (6). I involved my sense of inquiry, extending my audience to those fairly acquainted with the sport, and possibly expressing similar interests. These questions extend to inquiry of “doping” or illegal drug use in the sport, which is quite the hot topic nowadays, thanks to Lance Armstrong. In addition, my writing structure employed a sense of organization; any sport is structurally complex to decipher. I partitioned my work into topics to be discussed; within some topics, I had subtopics of comparisons between public and private contexts. By doing so I minimized confusion for the readers by discussing aspects in a controlled manner.

Major Paper 1 was written for a professional, academic audience that includes my professor. In this piece, I discuss the effects of teaching academics in Ebonics—a minority dialect with a negative connotation. To argue that teaching classes in Ebonics is merely a quick-fix to less-proficient students’ learning, I utilize a more colorful cornucopia of word choice that implements thoughts more concisely, without the need for lengthy explanation, “To counteract the detrimental effects of segregation, acknowledging the dynamic connection between language, identity, perspective, influence, and power is critical” (1).  Because this paper originates from a complex claim, and even more complex written structure, it was important to maintain my audience’s intrigue by varying sentence structure, word choice, and articulation. By stating several facts or points in one sentence, I am able to include background information, a claim, and even some support, “Without language, diverse perspectives would be unattainable; therefore variation in ethical values would be nonexistent in society” (1). Because my audience is of academic background, they are more likely to question themselves on a deeper, almost existential level when presented with such a controversial debate of ethical ethnic dialect dilemmas. 

By stepping into my audiences’ shoes, I was able to better accommodate and engage them in my essays through my awareness of their interests and concerns. I demonstrated this in two essays, one in a casual context, and another in a professional academic context. This thoroughly demonstrates that I am can write proficiently in different writing contexts.

This is my existentialism thinker buddy, David