Core Value I. My work demonstrates that I used a variety of social and interactive practices that involve recursive stages of exploration, discovery, conceptualization, and development.
When I first made the proposal + 5, I based my article on the concept of millennials. I then found the 5 articles that I was planning to use for my eventual research paper. I analyzed the sources and conceptualized how I would have fit the sources in my essay. However, I eventually switched my thesis completely so I had to repeat the same steps to help for my actual research paper. Repeating the same step showed me how the essays can be constructed and molded by the information and citations that you make and how the more modifications that is added, the more the essay can grow and adapt. I started to appreciate the repeated process of finding more and more information to then add on to a concept of an idea that can easily change.
Core Value II. My work demonstrates that I placed texts into conversation with one another to create meaning by synthesizing ideas from various discourse communities.
In my Visual Rewrite, I analyzed a 30-second ad of a little boy who was attempting to eat food. However, as I described the ad frame by frame, I started to talk to other people to see what they believed certain details represented different claims for different people. From there, used the different ideas that each idea can imply and used to completely analyze a situation. For example, the ad displayed numerous pictures on a fridge. However, once I started to analyze each picture as a separate claim, I was able to deduce much more information than I originally thought I would. Two of the most notable papers was a family drawing, which lacked a large male figure and showed a lady in all blue, and a Diploma. With only these two articles of paper and examining them as claims, I deduced that the father left the household and forced the mother who was a nurse to constantly work to fill a financial gap.
Core Value III. My work demonstrates that I rhetorically analyzed the purpose, audience, and contexts of my own writing and other texts and visual arguments.
In the Stone Money Rewrite, I originally wrote the analyzation of the podcast and numerous articles of the different forms of money as a very formal paper as I was used to that in my former classes. However, the lessons on how to entice the reader to read more instead of trying to simply relay information changed my view on how to write the paper. From attempting to add details in the lecture of Cows and Chips, I started to imagine my language in a way so that the reader can easily understand. I then changed my very abstract descriptions of money to easy to understand representations. This was one of the first times I considered the audience of my writing
Core Value IV: 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.
In my Causal Rewrite, I viewed many different articles that made many different claims of why the work environment for scientists is causing issues. I started to understand the situations and constrictions each claim was attempting to make and I combined the separate claims together to make a causal chain that utilizes claims such as the scientists are forced to publish what will make them money, and connect that with the issue of businesses can influence with money and how the two ideologies became a perfect segway for each other.
Core Value V. 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 Position Paper, I utilized many different studies and controversies to help prove my point. I supplied the information and background that was needed to help understand the pretexts of a situation and why the result of the situation mattered. Since scientific studies are very based on what the study attempted to find, its results, and the actual effect it had. I attempted to use and supply with all the knowledge of my studies and then explain what resulted afterward. For example, one of my studies was showing how a retest of already published studies can differ. Instead of only saying the result, I took the entire context of what the study did in order to explain the source as best as possible.