Embedded Files
My Experience in WRT 205: A Culminating Reflection
I can't believe that I'm at the end of another Spring semester, reviewing my journey through one of my favorite classes that I've taken at Syracuse. Across WRT 205, one of the most consistent challenges I faced in research writing was articulating my ideas clearly in written form. When I express my thoughts about a project out loud, they flow naturally. Speaking allows me to adjust in real time so that I can hear what I’m saying and recognize when something is unclear. The focus is less on sophistication and more on coherence and clarity. However, my writing process is not always that simple. Sometimes, I work so hard to sound academic that in the process, my main ideas become less clear. I forget that writing is primarily a form of communication, not performance. If my ideas are not understandable to the reader, then they are not effective.
Image #1: The Writing Center at Syracuse University (Google)
The Writing Center became my main support system for working through this struggle. Working with instructors allowed me to incorporate feedback coming from a reader's perspective. I learned that oftentimes what made sense to me as the writer did not translate clearly to someone reading it for the first time. It helped to explain my ideas verbally first, and recieve feedback like, “just write exactly that.” While my first instinct was to resist advice like this because I thought my natural phrasing was not “sophisticated enough”, over time I realized that articulating my ideas clearly is more important. The writing can be polished later on to sound better, but my first aim should be to make it understandable. Now instead of trying to perfect a paragraph immediately, I know that refinement can come later. This shift has made my writing more efficient, more articulate, and less stressful. I no longer try to produce a final draft on the first attempt, but embrace the process.
While learning to write more coherently was certainly important, my biggest growth moment was learning how to use the rhetorical sourcing method. In my Unit 1 project analyzing Hudson Westbrook’s “Painted You Pretty”, I struggled significantly with source integration. I provided quotes without properly introducing them or analyzing them, leaving my audience to do the work of bridging these the gaps. My professor’s feedback on the project highlighted this, and she pointed out the need to strengthen my rhetorical sourcing practices. At first, this didn't really make sense to me. But after reviewing the rhetorical sourcing handout for the first time, everything made sense. This document provided a structured method for source integration that I applied in later projects. Rhetorical sourcing includes preparing the reader by introducing your own ideas first, providing context about the source and its author, selecting meaningful quotes, and then explicitly explaining how the quote connects to your ideas. Using this method improved my writing dramatically, and I began getting perfect scores on my projects. This shift made me realize how much of research writing depends not just on having sources, but intentionally integrating those sources.
Image #2: My Professor's feedback on my Unit 1 Project
Another major area of growth for me was learning how to write within different genres. Before this class, I felt most comfortable writing traditional academic essays. However, WRT 205 pushed me to work in unfamiliar genres like an art interview in Unit 2, an art review in Unit 3, and an art controversy guide in Unit 4. Each of these had different conventions to consider, so I had to do some research. I found The examples given for each project were also helpful, because they showed me what the final product of the piece was supposed to look like. Alongside that, doing rhetorical summaries of different of texts helped me understand how different genres actually function before writing in them. I was least familiar with the conventions of an art controversy guide, so that project pushed me to do the most research in preparation of writing it. I spent time a lot of time referencing other students’ work, as well as examples of art guides on the internet to get a better sense of their structure, sources, tone, etc.. I also made sure to reference the assignment sheet, since it outlined exactly what was expected from my guide.
I encountered a hiccup during the Unit 3 Project–an art review on Colombia’s 2026 FIFA World Cup home jersey–when I was struggling to find a source. Countless hours were spent browsing the Syracuse Library Database, refining searches on ProQuest, and even trying to use AI to help. However, no text was aligning with my ideas. Eventually, I came across the article “Process Design Method of Sports Uniforms in Major Sports Events” through Google Scholar. This 2014 study by Jie, Wang, and Yanjie describes uniform design as a structured process that considers multiple dimensions, from cultural context to fashion trends, in order to create a cohesive and meaningful design. While this source seemed perfect for my project, incorporating it was not easy. It generated so many ideas in my head that I struggled to narrow them down. I had to carefully select quotes and decide how they connected to my argument rather than trying to include everything. This experience not only taught me the importance of persistence in research, but also the value of discipline in writing.
Revision also played a major role in my development as a writer. Once again referencing the Unit 3 Project, I had a moment where I thought my draft was nearly complete and ready to submit. But, after receiving feedback from my professor at the Writing Center, I realized that this was not the case. She told me I had too much research without enough analysis, so my voice was getting lost. Also, I needed to be more articulate with my opinions about the jersey I was reviewing. She even recommended that I start from scratch to restructure the entire project. Initially, this feedback was frustrating, and left me a little bit hopeless. But, I later realized that it was all part of the writing process. Strong writing comes from revision, not initial drafting. So, I essentially rebuilt my project from the ground up, keeping the same core ideas. This process strengthened my work significantly, and I even got a perfect grade on the project.
Overall, getting feedback from peers is an essential part of the writing process. With that being said, sometimes people think that AI can work in a similar way to improve writing. I would have to disagree with this. I discovered at the beginning of the semester, when comparing AI's rhetorical summaries to my own, how it often uses formulaic writing patterns that makes its content sound boring and repetitive. During this course, I only used AI for vocabulary purposes, and occasionally to help me locate sources. Even then, AI can generate fake sources that don't exist. This taught me to be even more cautious about relying on it, and to use it with purpose. AI can support writing in some ways, but it cannot replace the thinking and decision-making that research writing requires.
Thinking about AI’s role in writing also encouraged me to reconsider what I value in my own process. After taking WRT 205, I appreciate the final product of my work even more than I did before. What makes the final product so meaningful is all of the process work behind it. Tthe brainstorming, research, drafting, peer review, and revision is what goes into creating a successful writing piece. I came to appreciate that the process is where real learning happens, but the final product is where I am able to showcase that. Research writing is an intentional, layered process that requires reading, thinking, revising, and carefully guiding an audience through ideas. It is not just about writing that sounds good, but making ideas coherent and meaningful to others. It calls for communicating clearly, engaging with sources critically, adapting to different genres, and understanding the audience.
Page updated
Report abuse