Core Value 1. My work demonstrates that I used a variety of social and interactive practices that involve recursive stages of exploration, discovery, conceptualization, and development.

1. Value of feedback. When I first chose technology dependence as my research topic, I was genuinely excited, but it didn’t take long for me to realize that simply discussing the negative effects of phone usage wouldn’t make my paper stand out. The topic was already well-trodden, and I knew I needed something more unique to capture the reader’s attention and offer a fresh perspective. I wanted my research to offer something different from the typical statistics and warnings about phone addiction that everyone has heard before. I wanted my work to engage readers, make them think, and offer a new take on a topic that felt overdone.

During my first conference with my professor, I shared my ideas, but he was initially hesitant about approving the topic. He explained that while the subject had potential, it was too broad and had been covered extensively. However, rather than discouraging me, he challenged me to think beyond the usual narrative. He encouraged me to find a way to make the topic more personal, more relatable—something that could offer a new angle while still addressing the critical issues of technology dependence.

We brainstormed together, and that conversation was a turning point for me. It became clear that if I could add a personal perspective—a journal in my case—my paper could be much more engaging. It wasn’t just about regurgitating information; it was about bringing something fresh and thought-provoking to the table. Through this process, I was able to demonstrate perseverance and openness in developing my ideas and writing over time.

2. Multi-stage process.

If you asked me what the principal quality of a good writer is, I would say: revise, revise, and revise—and then revise some more! Do I like making revisions? No. But there is no better way to measure progress as a writer. When I first received feedback from my professor, I was overwhelmed. His comments were almost as long as my entire paper, and I honestly considered changing my topic. However, I decided to stick with it and apply his feedback to my work. I ended up spending even more time revising than I did on the original draft, which I had already considered pretty good.

After revising my Definition Argument, something clicked. My paper felt completely different—fresher, more engaging, and much more inspiring. The process made me realize that it’s always worth pushing beyond the limits of what feels “good enough” to strive for greatness and excellence. I could have done the bare minimum, which would have earned me a solid B, but I knew that wouldn’t help me grow as a writer.

Core Value 2. My work demonstrates that I read critically, and that I placed texts into conversation with one another to create meaning by synthesizing ideas from various discourse communities. 

In my paper, I embody Core Value 2 by engaging deeply with texts, not only to understand them but also to critically analyze and challenge the arguments within. For instance, I examined Nicholas Carr’s argument about how the internet has eroded our focus and Jean Twenge’s observations about how smartphones are shaping Generation Z’s social lives. These scholarly insights inspired me to reflect on my own relationship with technology. By combining their perspectives with my personal experiences, I created a more layered, authentic argument.

I also leaned heavily on this approach for my Causal Argument and honestly, it was the hardest one for me. The challenge wasn’t that I didn’t have enough sources—it was the exact opposite. There were so many, it was overwhelming. It felt like every fact I found was already well-known, so trying to make it interesting felt like trying to find a new angle on something everyone already understood. I had to sift through tons of information and pick the pieces that would not only support my argument but also make readers feel something new. It forced me to dig deeper, think critically about what truly mattered, and find fresh ways to present ideas that felt both relatable and thought-provoking. It was tough, but it made the final piece much stronger and more engaging than I thought it could be.

This experience taught me the importance of reading deeply—not just to understand what others are saying, but to think critically about it and find ways to make it my own. I had to focus on not just regurgitating facts, but truly analyzing and questioning the sources, looking for connections, and figuring out how I could bring something new to the conversation. In the end, I realized that even when the material feels overwhelming or already well-known, there’s always room for fresh perspective.

Core Value 3. My work demonstrates that I rhetorically analyzed the purpose, audience, and contexts of my own writing and other texts and visual arguments.

In my writing, I truly embody Core Value 3 by always keeping my audience, purpose, and context in mind. I’ve learned that writing isn’t just about putting ideas on paper; it’s about crafting a message that resonates with the right people, in the right way, at the right time. For instance, when I worked on last revisions of my Final version of Research Paper, I had to reconsider once again not only what I wanted to say, but who would be reading it and why it mattered to them, I had to pay attention to nuances and details of my text in order for it to reach its reader.

I became much more conscious of rhetorical choices—how my audience would respond to my structure, my tone, and the evidence I presented. For example, I used vivid examples and personal journal quotations to create an emotional connection, making my argument not just informative, but engaging. And of course, I made sure to follow academic conventions—correct citations, clear formatting, and strong grammar—so my paper was polished and respected the genre’s expectations.

What really excites me about Core Value 3 is how it pushes me to be adaptable in my writing. Whether it’s for an academic paper, a blog post, or even a social media message, understanding the rhetorical situation helps me craft arguments that are not only relevant but also compelling.

Core Value 4: My work demonstrates that I have met the expectations of academic writing by locating, evaluating, and incorporating illustrations and evidence to support my own ideas and interpretations.

Core Value 4, “Information literacy is essential to the practice of writing,” really hit home for me as I worked through my writing assignments. I learned that research isn’t just about finding supporting evidence—it’s about carefully selecting sources that make my argument stronger and more meaningful.

What truly clicked for me during this process was the idea of thinking critically about sources. I stopped just looking for sources that agreed with me and started questioning the credibility of the material I found. I had to consider who wrote it, why they wrote it, and if the information was reliable. By actively engaging with the material, I was able to find the gaps in the argument and use my research to build a more well-rounded, convincing stance.

In my Rebuttal Argument, I felt like I was walking on fragile ice—trying to defend my point while giving respect to an opposing viewpoint that seemed reasonable at first. The real challenge was not just proving my stance, but engaging with the other side in a way that acknowledged its validity while showing where it fell short. I used a contrary article that initially seemed solid, but as I dug deeper, I saw gaps and oversimplifications. This is where my critical thinking had to kick in—I couldn’t just dismiss the other side, I had to dissect it and prove, with evidence, why my perspective was stronger.

Proper citation also became second nature. At first, I found it tedious, but as I grew more confident in my writing, I realized how important it was. Citing my sources wasn’t just about following rules—it was about showing respect for the ideas that shaped my argument and making my work more credible. This experience showed me that information literacy isn’t just about gathering facts—it’s about weaving them together into a strong, thoughtful argument that contributes to a larger conversation.

Core Value 5. My work demonstrates that I respect my ethical responsibility to represent complex ideas fairly and to the sources of my information with appropriate citation. 

In my research paper, I knew I wasn’t just writing for a grade—I was stepping into a conversation with thinkers and real-world issues that mattered. And with that came the weight of responsibility. Writing isn’t a free-for-all where I can twist or oversimplify ideas to fit my argument; it’s about engaging with complexity and giving credit where it’s due. Every time I came across a new source, I couldn’t just copy-paste; I had to dig in, understand the author’s point, and reflect it back with accuracy. There was no room for taking shortcuts or misrepresenting ideas. I had to get it right, not just for myself, but for the writers whose words I was borrowing to shape my own.

I didn’t want to win by just emotional appeal or rhetorical trickery. I wanted my argument to stand on its own merit, supported by hard evidence and clear reasoning. I made sure to qualify my claims—because I knew that in this academic world, nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

The best example of my commitment to ethical writing and intellectual integrity is my Annotated Bibliography. I poured a lot of time and effort into this assignment, treating each source with the respect it deserved. Instead of skimming through or cherry-picking information that fit my argument, I made sure to really engage with each piece—digesting its points, understanding its context, and recognizing its value in the bigger conversation. For every source, I wrote clear summaries, included background information, and outlined how I intended to use it in my paper.I took this extra step because I’ve noticed that too often, people approach sources with a filter: they only see what supports their argument and ignore the rest. This selective reading can easily lead to misinterpretation or oversimplification.