Select 1 page of your team members' individual sites to analyze for strengths and weaknesses.  Use the Study guide part B to critique it as a team. 

Try to go through the process below in conversation with at least ONE conceptual term

• Your claim about how a particular communication strategy works effectively or is problematic, or has both positive and negative rhetorical elements. 
• The identification of the communicator’s aim and/or challenge – what are they trying to accomplish, why, and how is it particularly challenging when viewed in a certain way?  Do not merely name an aim, but explain it within a realistic, hypothetical scenario.
• The use of at least 1 conceptual term or group of terms from the list provided.  
• Your justification of your claim using specific evidence from the screenshot.  
• A reasonable hypothesis about how a particular type of reader or readers in a certain situation might respond to that communication strategy.  Give enough information about a reader’s knowledge, values, role, occupation – whatever is relevant.
• provide insight into online professional/public rhetoric and its processes of production and reception.

Use the remaining Lab time to discuss anything else your team would like to accomplish today.

Go to the COMS 463 Blog to reflect in the last few minutes of Lab time.