Gonzales 1

Ryan Gonzales
Professor Lynda Haas
Writing 37
4 March 2015
A Reflection of my Writing 37 Experience
I think one of the most intriguing aspects of life is the experience of being wrong.
Accepting being incorrect opens the mind to new ideas and possibilities. The reason for this is
the matter of realizing that there are many thoughts and notions in existence that each have their
own benefit from understanding them. With that being said, I am glad to say that my original
beliefs of writing 37, prior to taking the class, were completely wrong. I expected this class to be
monotonous and completely objective to the professor's beliefs. Instead, after accepting that my
thoughts were erroneous, I received a lively, open-minded class experience that sparked my
curiosity and motivated me to acquire new writing knowledge.
From day one, my professor, Lynda Haas, put a lot of emphasis on the idea of
understanding rhetoric (the art of persuasion). We focused on learning how to effectively
persuade the audience depending on many factors. These factors include molding work in
correspondence to a specific type of audience, persuading through different forms of mediums,
and utilizing genres to satisfy the audience. What was quite interesting was how we focused on
rhetoric through the class topic of animals which helped me engage in learning through a
relatable topic.

Gonzales 2

Our class had four major assignments including this essay and excluding the required eportfolio: Literature review essay, rhetorical analysis essay, and a public service announcement.
Each assignment was related to animals in some way and was based on our critical readings with
different types of text. For example, my literature review essay was a look into why dogs have
become "man's best friend". Using numerous scholarly sources, such as renowned sociologist
Leslie Irvine, I analyzed the many factors that led to dog's current status in human society. I
slowly progressed the essay through different drafts required from the professor. After going
through peer review, I was able to revise certain parts of the essay to better improve its overall
strength. This is especially evident in the second paragraph of my essay.
"Leslie Irvine quotes urban researcher Constance Perin, "The human family
provides a parallel to the sort of group dogs are equipped to relate to. In the 'good
family dog' we recognize that biological basis for the two species coming
together". Humans are social animals that need social interaction. For certain
individuals in society, finding a person to satisfy that need can be quite
challenging. Other people look to satisfy a certain need that no other person..."
I chose to reflect on this paragraph because it was the one that got the most criticisms from my
reviewers. The reason for this is, at first, my ideas were very scrambled and unorganized. Many
of my reviewers could not identify a main idea or point. I revised this paragraph by stating my
main idea right away and by organizing my sources to support the main idea in a way that is easy
to follow. In my rhetorical analysis essay, I analyzed Jack London's use of rhetorical devices in
his short story, "To Build a Fire", and how he utilized these devices to convey his ideas on man's
detachment from nature. Like my literature review essay, my rhetorical analysis has also gone

Gonzales 3

through different drafts; each being improved after reviews. Again, my second paragraph
received the most criticism and needed the most improvement.
"To further examine the durability of man and animal, London turns to using the
rhetorical device of symbolism. Symbols in "To Build a Fire" include fire, the
man's hands, and even the dog himself. Shoomp.com, an analysis website on
stories, explains each symbol: "The presence of fire in this story represents life,
and the absence of it shows that life is running... Much like the fire, the man's
hands can mean the difference between life and death. By losing control of his
hands, he is also unable to kill his dog and use its body to (wait for it) warm his
hands... The wolf dog also symbolizes a connection to instinct, which lies in a
"mysterious prompting that [arises] from the deep crypts of its being" (13). This is
a knowledge that lies beyond the realm of ..."
This paragraph's primary issue was with the quotes. Rather than help support the analysis, the
quotes instead were more of summaries or re-statements of already stated ideas. In my revision,
I focused on adding more analysis and clarity to the paragraph rather than summary. To gauge
the progress of both of my projects, based on the rubrics, I would say that both show progress but
also have content that is most effective (ethos expertise and grammar and mechanics). After
going through the revision process for both essays, I learned about the importance of review. I
realized that, although I may see my ideas as clear and persuasive, others may not. Moreover, I
learned how much peer review helps with understanding rhetoric since, in the end, we are trying
to persuade an audience. For future improvement, I need to work on better analyzing criticism to
forward my work. Putting work in front of an audience and getting an opinion is essential in

Gonzales 4

creating a work that contains effective rhetoric. All this emphasis on review and revision has
helped my metacognition (my ability to reflect on my own learning).
Since the use of rhetoric is highly dependent on whom the rhetor is trying to target, it is
very important to understand the unique mindsets of numerous people. Everyone has a different
way of thinking which, therefore, means a different way of being effectively persuaded. I feel
that the two group projects of this class helped me better understand how to adjust my rhetoric
accordingly. This is mainly due to one factor, collaboration. Our first project was a research
project and presentation on a certain issue in the animal community and the second project was a
PSA. In both projects, I generally took care of the media and tech aspects but also did my share
of research. For example, I organized my group's ideas into a power point for the research project
and did the same for the PSA with the difference of putting the ideas into an animated video. I
greatly enjoyed both projects and working with each group. The two groups I was in worked
very well together since everyone did their even share of work. It was a big change from past
classes since if someone did not do their work, it was a lot harder to pick up the load. Both my
peers and I had to learn to be responsible and persistent for and with our work. However, what I
found more interesting was how everyone's thoughts on how we could persuade more effectively
differed completely. As I put the media together, I took my group member's thoughts into
consideration and tried to combine all of our thoughts into one. This resulted in both projects
being very persuasive and effective. Moreover, I was able to exercise my creativity and learn to
be more creative by learning from other people. Nevertheless, our projects could have definitely
been improved. There were times when my groups could not meet in person to evaluate each
other's work in person. I found that, for future collaborations, I should always try to have
contingencies and try to make a compromise for everyone's schedules. I should always try to be

Gonzales 5

flexible and be prepared to adapt to situations. From this, I learned that rhetoric is even more
effective when more thoughts and views are carefully contemplated and appealed to. However,
one can only grasp these different views through interaction with other people.
Along with our major assignments and group projects, we also had assignments on the
website Connect. These assignments consisted of multiple choice questions along with
informative readings that tested and taught us certain aspects of writing. For example, we had
three assignments that were focused on the rhetorical devices: Ethos, pathos, and logos. We were
asked numerous questions where we would have to identify where a certain rhetorical device was
being used or why a certain device was effective. If we were struggling in any category, we
would be given a reading to help us better understand the learning objective. Connect keeps track
of the scores that I received in each assignment. For me, I showed the most strength in grammar,
identifying logos, and identifying pathos. However, Connect showed that I am challenged most
in understanding reasoning and argument. The reason for this is that I had trouble identifying
credibility in an author's work. Simple "flowerly" language persuaded me to feel that a certain
work was credible when I should of been paying more attention to the fine details. Connect
highly suggest that I recharge on this topic to get a better understanding on the learning
objective. In all, these Connect assignments have helped me improved my use of rhetoric.
Throughout my experience in writing 37, I have been wrong about many things. Whether
I was wrong in my use of rhetoric or in an aspect of writing, being wrong has opened my mind to
learn more. I found that not having the answer does not mean failure. Rather, failure comes when
one refuses to look more into finding an answer. Ironically, I came to see that being wrong has
led me to a better understanding of how to effectively use rhetoric. Throughout the numerous
corrections, reviews, and revisions that I had to endure, I learned more of other people's views

Gonzales 6

and what persuades other individuals. This class has opened my mind to more possibilities and
has taught me to always keep an open eye.