Throughout this semester of ENGL 21007, my writing has developed immensely as I gained experience with diverse genres, readers, and rhetorical situations. Through writing descriptions, rhetorical analysis, and co-authored proposals, each assignment required me to employ unique approaches and consider the function and effect of writing. Throughout this self-evaluation, I will discuss how I have mastered the course learning outcomes and how my thinking on writing transformed from a mere skill into an active tool for communication, persuasion, and creativity.

The first learning objective, examining and analyzing a range of genres and rhetorical situations, was best illustrated in my Hydraulic Piston Pump rhetorical analysis. Through this paper, I discovered that writing isn’t merely explaining something but also convincing a certain set of engineers, aviation experts, and policymakers with rhetorical means. I did know the subject before diving into it but changing the perspective of my writing was difficult in the beginning. The assignment challenged me to analyze how the original lab report developed its argument, employed technical graphics, and emphasized urgency with design flaw discussions. This was quite different from my technical report on the reciprocating engine, of course, in that it was all about objective description, facts, and precision, not requiring me to persuade anyone of anything. Having alternated between two different genres, I gained an appreciation for how writing needs to be adjusted according to its intent and audience.

Drafting, collaborating, and revising
My growth in crafting strategies for reading, writing, collaborating, revising, and editing was best illustrated in the group proposal for Grocobot, an intelligent shopping cart aided by artificial intelligence. In collaborating with my fellow writers, I had to contribute not just material but also synthesize competing styles of writing, facilitate logical reasoning between sections, and revisiting on my group member’s suggestions. Through team brainstorming, we constructed upon one another’s technical expertise and developed a comprehensive proposal that was innovative but also feasible. I learned how revision was paramount, not just on a sentence level but on a purpose, audience consideration, and project vision level. I also gained a deeper appreciation for team-based writing, in which communication and compromise are critical.

Applying Rhetorical Terms and Research Practices
I also learned how to recognize and apply major rhetorical terms and techniques, particularly in the rhetorical lab report. I determined the use of logos in scientific descriptions, ethos in referencing FAA sources, and pathos in invoking safety and urgency. I became adept at describing these rhetorical aspects over time, particularly upon re-reading my own and others’ writing with these in mind. The Grocobot proposal also entailed the search and analysis of research sources, such as government food waste facts and motor component details. I was able to evaluate the reliability and pertinence of said sources, ensuring they validated the feasibility of the product and the issue it proposed to remedy.

Integrating Sources and Citing Properly
I developed in both the rhetorical and technical reports the skill of writing texts that are both supported by a stance and proper sources through the use of summary, analysis, synthesis, and argumentation. For instance, in the reciprocating engine report, I synthesized FAA technical documents and historical accounts to describe the operations and components of the engine in my own voice and yet remain technologically accurate. In the analysis of hydraulic pumps, I critically read the literature and commented on the structure of the paper and its weaknesses, synthesizing evidence in support of my interpretation. I also learned how, in a systematic way, I could use citation rules like APA and IEEE formats for transparency and academic honesty.

Shifting Perceptions of Writing
I think the most significant adjustment for me this semester has been in answering that fundamental question of What is writing? I approached the course with a static conception of writing as a skill associated with essays and grammar. I realize now, however, that writing is both flexible and potent. It’s a problem-solving tool, a means of design, and a tool of advocacy. It can be descriptive, like in my reciprocating engine piece; analytical and argumentative, like in my rhetorical analysis; and visionary and collaborative, like in the Grocobot proposal. It can be technocratic or emotive, logical or ethical, and possibly all of the above.

Writing isn’t something that you just do in school, it is something that engineers use in order to communicate designs, persuade investors, report on failure, and envision improved futures. It is influenced by context, purpose, and audience. Above all, I have learned that writing is all about making decisions—what to include, what to exclude, how to word something and those decisions determine how it is received and responded to. Unfortunately, Through writing that is both technical in nature, collaborative in process, and rhetorically critical, I have developed an appreciation for writing as a strength that is essential in engineering and beyond. Admitting that there is always potential for improvement most notably in balancing technical difficulty with simplicity I’m nevertheless pleased with my improvement this semester. The course assignments included in this portfolio show that I have not just achieved several of the course learning outcomes but have started to understand writing as a developing practice that enables me with the skills of critical thinking, effective communication, and active engagement in the professional environment.