When writing my initial draft for writing project 2 I used the schema as an initial outline to be filled in piece by piece with relevant information. For project 1 I had written the entire project out in a word processor initially and then broken down the pieces to be put back into the schema for an annotated bibliography. However, this time around I decided to try writing my proposal document in pieces based on the schema and then read back over it to correct for any repetitiveness or inconsistency. The schema we have created fits well with my rhetorical situation however, at times its format is a bit too rigid for the types of information that I am trying to display. I would not say that the schema constrained the context of the proposal. If any thing it probably helped to keep the report formal and logical in its ordering of information.
The piece that I peer reviewed was much different from my document. It was straightforward in its approach and kept the information in each section concise and to the point. The project proposed in it was made slightly simpler than it would be in real life in order to keep within the constraints of the assignment. Because of this I feel like there are a few areas where problems or opposition could be discussed more further or that his project could be a little bit more thought out as far as a long term solution.
Using the schema created by the class as a whole in project one was a bit easier because we had talked about each aspect so in depth that it felt like the elements had become very general and were well understood by everyone using it. In this project thought, the schema felt slightly constrained due to the fact that it was made by fewer people looking at a larger variety of examples. By trying to keep each element broad but still descriptive there were definitely areas that became a bit specific to certain types of projects or proposals.
