Feeding Fido and revising HCP
This week, we received feedback on our social media campaign and have therefore been working on tuning our campaign. As our campaign revolves around raising awareness of bad ingredients pet food companies like to put in our pets' foods, we decided on sharing information regarding these bad ingredients the first three days of our campaign, sharing posts about the rendering process that occurs for "meat byproducts" and "meat meals" among other things; additionally, we will be sharing information on foods that are dangerous / healthy for our pets to eat so our audience can create foods on their own for their pets. In an effort to get our audience involved and create more awareness for our social media campaign, we decided in creating events such as "Friday Date Night" that would involve our audience to use a recipe we share on instagram or a recipe of their own and create a small meal for their pets and spend time with their pets. As most people enjoy showing off their pets and their creations, we figured it may generate some buzz on social media and bring awareness to our campaign if people post their photos with the tag #FeedingFido. We are also going to split our infographic into two separate infographics, where one will talk about the bad products in pet foods and the other will inform our audience on what they can do to help or avoid these problematic ingredients.
In addition to our social media campaign, we have been focusing on revising our HCP drafts. We were each assigned a classmate's paper for which we had to provide a peer review for following a template. Through the process of peer reviewing James' paper, I had a better understanding of the specific requirements of our rubric, and as James' paper was extremely well-written, I had a good example of how an essay should be written. James' HCP flowed well from one source to the next, and he was able to maintain his thesis throughout the essay; it was very focused, and from that I was able to see how my essay lacked as clear a focus. It was helpful to see my essay from a different perspective based on the reviews I receieved from James as well as Dr. Haas, and I tried to rearrange and rewrite portions of my essay that they pointed out were lacking. James suggested including more sources in order to provide further evidence for my thesis, which I agreed with and followed; likewise, I included more studies on early animal cognition and cognitive ethology studies, per Dr. Haas' advice.
Obviously, I prioritized what Dr. Haas found lacking in my essay, as she would be the one grading my essay and had the most experience writing between the three of us involved in my HCP (me, James, and Dr. Haas). I included more studies and experiments on early animal cognition and cognitive ethology, as well as changing the focus on parts of my essay to emphasize what anthropomorphisms mean in terms of the human-canine relationship as opposed to just introducing the argument against anthropomorphisms. I tried to include more history on the domestication of dogs, using studies the archaeozoology of the domestication of dogs. As this is a historical conversation essay, I thought including additional history would be appropriate, and in an attempt to tie it into my AP, I tried to argue that this long, shared history we have with domesticating and the domestication of dogs serves as a moral obligation to adopt more humane and ethical breeding habits.
