I used the schema to organize the content of my proposal and also as a reminder as to what information was necessary/required in a public project proposal. I felt the schema was appropriate for the rhetorical situation as I attempt to convince the audience that the MBTA has serious issues related to its subway and that it would be in the benefit of the city to resolve them. The schema did at times feel constraining as it did not allow for multiple paragraphs within a section and allowed only one feasibility section. However, we did not intend for this to be the design of the schema and plan to correct these issues. One thing I though about was that most proposals would include some form of data and the schema does not currently allow the presentation of that data in a table or graph as visuals often have more of an impact on the audience
The schema helped me separate which information I thought would be appropriate for the introduction and that which belonged in the background. The definitions and elements within the background schema made it easier to draft my proposal and saved me some time in the decision process. I think my peer review partner struggled like I did as to how much information to include in the schema, as the proposal is meant to be a much longer document where as writing project 2 is meant to be around a 1000 words. We both struggled with how much detail should be used and both made some vague statements at times in an attempt to summarize our arguments. I found the schema designed in small groups easier to use as it was more aligned with what I was trying to do, which is to be expected when only five people designed the schema compared to the whole class. I found the definitions acceptable in the schema, but would be open to revising them a bit if others in my group thought it necessary.
