Madeleine Castellano
This ePortfolio reflects my growth throughout the course, highlighting how I developed as a writer and thinker. Through multiple projects, I learned to adapt my writing processes, engage with different literacies, consider audience and context, make strategic decisions, and revise thoughtfully, strengthening both my skills and confidence as a writer.
Research
Research Proposal
In completing my research proposal, I engaged most directly with the course outcomes of Information Literacy, Generating Inquiry, and Contributing Knowledge. Crafting this proposal required careful evaluation of sources and methods, which strengthened my ability to analyze documentaries critically and ethically. Through Information Literacy, I selected The Social Dilemma and Blackfish as primary examples, justifying their relevance and credibility while planning research methods using contextual, textual, visual, and comparative analyses to systematically uncover fear-based rhetorical strategies.
Developing my research question, “How do documentaries use fear-based appeals to emphasize issues such as social media ethics and animal welfare?” allowed me to practice Generating Inquiry. I explored meaningful questions that guided my analysis while framing a larger conversation about the persuasive power of documentaries. The proposal demonstrates Contributing Knowledge as well, as I positioned my project within a broader critical conversation about media, ethics, and persuasion. By synthesizing evidence from multiple films and identifying patterns in how fear is constructed, I began to draw conclusions that could inform audiences understanding of rhetorical strategies in media. This project reinforced the importance of careful planning, ethical analysis, and connecting research to larger societal discussions.
Anotated Bibliography
In completing my annotated bibliography, I engaged most directly with the course outcomes of Information Literacy, Generating Inquiry, and Contributing Knowledge. Selecting and analyzing sources required careful evaluation of relevance, credibility, and authority, which strengthened my Information Literacy skills. I sought peer-reviewed studies, journalistic analyses, and opinion pieces to provide a balanced understanding of how fear-based appeals function in documentaries like Blackfish and The Social Dilemma. Through Generating Inquiry, I developed research questions and identified gaps in existing scholarship, considering how filmmakers construct emotional and rhetorical strategies to influence audiences. This process encouraged me to critically interrogate the relationship between media, emotion, and social impact, asking not just “what happens” but “how and why” fear motivates viewers to act. The annotated bibliography demonstrates Contributing Knowledge as well, as I synthesized diverse perspectives, from psychological theories of fear to audience reception, to build a coherent foundation for my research project. Analyzing these sources helped me understand how evidence supports rhetorical claims, and how emotional persuasion in documentaries can be both measured and interpreted. This assignment reinforced the importance of source evaluation, critical synthesis, and thoughtful engagement with scholarly and popular texts.
Research paper
My research paper, Fear as a Rhetorical Force, demonstrates my engagement with all six student learning outcomes, reflecting growth as both a writer and researcher. I adapted my writing processes to address multiple genres of analysis, combining textual, visual, contextual, and comparative methods. Refining my research question and methodology allowed me to approach a complex topic systematically, while incorporating visual and textual literacies, such as imagery, music, and narrative, alongside verbal rhetoric strengthened my ability to analyze documentaries like Blackfish and The Social Dilemma. Setting clear research goals helped me organize and synthesize evidence from both scholarly and journalistic sources, ensuring a structured and comprehensive approach.
This project also deepened my understanding of variation across contexts, as I examined how fear operates across distinct social issues, highlighting the rhetorical strategies filmmakers employ in diverse media environments. Strategic decision-making guided my coding, data organization, and overall analysis, producing work that is systematic, replicable, and grounded in evidence. Additionally, the paper explores how documentaries shape audience perceptions, emphasizing the ethical responsibility and persuasive power of media. Iterative drafting and peer feedback strengthened clarity, argumentation, and source integration, reinforcing my ability to conduct complex research, adapt writing processes, and contribute meaningful insights to critical conversations about media, rhetoric, and public persuasion.
Discussion posts
Reading Response 3: Primary Research Methods
In this assignment I engaged directly with the course outcome of Information Literacy. My research question, about how new-age documentaries use fear-based appeals to influence public perception, required me to think critically about how information is produced, framed, and conveyed within media. In developing my plan for using content analysis, textual analysis, visual analysis, and comparative analysis, I had to evaluate which research methods were most relevant, credible, and ethical for studying non-human subjects like films.
Applying this outcome meant considering not just what information I would gather from documentaries such as The Social Dilemma and Blackfish, but how that information would be analyzed responsibly. I had to think about accuracy, objectivity, and the limits of interpreting media without using audience-based data. Through this process, I gained a stronger understanding of what it means to ethically analyze primary materials and to choose methods that align with the purpose of my research. This assignment helped me recognize how deliberate method selection supports credible academic inquiry and how information literacy is essential for producing meaningful research.
Reading response 4: Exigency
This assignment most clearly engages with the course outcome Generating Inquiry, because my response required me to explore genuine questions about exigency and why certain messages feel urgent or necessary. As I reflected on Vieregge’s definition of exigency, I found myself asking what actually makes a piece of writing indispensable to a reader, and how writers across different genres create that sense of urgency. This led me to examine examples like The Social Dilemma and Greta Thunberg’s UN speech, which pushed my thinking further about different strategies that spark engagement. This assignment also helped me reflect on my own writing process. I realized that when I struggle with broad prompts, it’s usually because I haven’t yet identified a meaningful question or personal connection to explore. By reframing prompts around something I’m genuinely interested in, I create my own sense of purpose in the assignment, which makes writing feel more intentional and motivated. Overall, the assignment helped me better understand how inquiry drives both rhetorical analysis and my own ability to make writing meaningful.
Reading Response 6: Analyzing Primary Data
This assignment most strongly aligns with the course outcome Contributing Knowledge, because it required me to think carefully about how to analyze primary evidence and develop meaningful conclusions from it. By learning about open coding from Denny and Clark, as well as the Quirkos video, I began to understand how researchers move from raw data to organized themes that can answer a research question. In my response, I described how I plan to reread interview transcripts multiple times, noticing repeated phrases, emotions, or patterns that emerge naturally. This process helped me recognize that contributing knowledge isn’t just about collecting information, but it’s about interpreting it responsibly and making sure the themes I identify truly reflect what participants expressed. The assignment also deepened my understanding of ethical analysis, thinking about how easily data can be misrepresented made me more aware of my responsibility as a researcher. I learned that contributing knowledge means presenting findings transparently and resisting the temptation to shape the evidence to fit a preferred argument. Overall, engaging with the coding process showed me how careful interpretation and ethical decision-making are essential for producing meaningful and trustworthy research.
Reading Response 7: Rethinking Assessment
This assignment aligns most closely with the course outcome of Revision, because reading Reynolds and Davis and Friend significantly reshaped how I understand feedback and its role in improving writing. Before engaging with these texts, I often saw grades as the final step in an assignment, or a kind of closing judgment rather than part of an ongoing learning process. But the readings made me recognize that assessment is a complex and thoughtful act grounded in shared academic standards. Their point that “oral and written commentary is more instructive than a letter grade” helped me understand why feedback is essential for meaningful revision rather than an optional extra. Reflecting on my own experiences, I realized how much more I grew when teachers provided comments that guided me toward specific changes. The authors’ explanations clarified why this kind of feedback helps writers see both the strengths of their process and the areas that need further development. This assignment strengthened my understanding that revision isn’t just editing, but also responding to informed feedback and rethinking choices as part of an ongoing conversation. It made me more aware of how assessment supports growth and why active revision is central to becoming a stronger writer.
Reading Response 2: Genre Identification and Analysis
For my genre analysis of music release announcements, I engaged directly with the course outcome of Research Genre Production. This assignment required me to examine how writers and creators make purposeful choices within a specific genre to meet the expectations of a particular community, in this case, music fans, potential listeners, and industry insiders. By studying how announcements use promotional language, visuals, hashtags, and platform-specific diction, I learned how genre conventions guide both creators and audiences, shaping how information is shared and interpreted. Writing this analysis helped me understand how music release announcements function as a recognizable research genre: they follow patterns, rely on shared rhetorical strategies, and are shaped by the needs of the music industry. I also noticed how artists adjust tone, imagery, and terminology depending on the platform, showing the constraints and opportunities each medium presents. This assignment strengthened my growing knowledge of how genres evolve in response to audience expectations and communicative goals. It helped me see genre not as a rigid format, but as a flexible system of choices that creators navigate to effectively reach their communities.
Reading Response 5: Breaking Source Hunting Myths
In this assignment, I engaged closely with the course outcome of Multiple Ways of Writing by examining how different communities use distinct literacies and citation practices to establish credibility. Responding to Harrington and Purdy required me not only to summarize their arguments but also to analyze how writing conventions shift across genres such as journalism, marketing, academic scholarship, and digital platforms like Wikipedia. By comparing MLA-style citations to techniques like in-text source naming, testimonials, legends on graphs, and hyperlinking, I explored how different rhetorical situations call for different modes of writing and information-sharing. This assignment helped me recognize that writing is not a single universal skill but a flexible set of strategies adapted to the expectations of each audience. Harrington’s discussion of diplomatic, persuasive source use and Purdy’s reframing of Wikipedia both expanded my understanding of multiliteracies, which is how writers rely on visual elements, hyperlinks, naming practices, or narrative authority depending on the context. Through this analysis, I learned how writers navigate multiple modalities and conventions to communicate credibility, participate in conversations, and make information accessible to different communities.
Extra Credit Assignments
Analysing Research a Method in Pop Culture
In completing my assignment on Oppenheimer, I engaged deeply with the course outcomes of Critical Thinking & Reading, Research Processes, and Writing and Power. Analyzing Oppenheimer’s research method pushed me to consider how knowledge is produced, interpreted, and challenged, especially when research carries real ethical and political consequences. By breaking down his approach into observation, collaboration, experimentation, and interpretation, I applied our course discussions about how research is never neutral but shaped by context, purpose, and power structures. This directly aligned with the outcome of analyzing how writers and researchers make decisions when gathering and evaluating information.
The assignment also strengthened my understanding of how research involves rhetorical choices. Identifying strengths and weaknesses in Oppenheimer’s method required me to evaluate not only the scientific process but also the ethical dimensions that are often silenced or minimized. This helped me see how research practices reflect broader systems of power and responsibility.
Overall, this assignment helped solidify my understanding that research is a constructed, iterative process influenced by human values, and that ethical reflection is as essential to research as data or experimentation.
Spooky Special
In completing my detective case report, I engaged with several course outcomes, including Research Genre Production, Multiple Ways of Writing, and Generating Inquiry. This assignment required me to carefully consider how to structure and communicate information for a specific genre, emphasizing the conventions of a professional case file while incorporating a noir-inspired narrative style. By arranging the argument logically with a summary, timeline, evidence, witness statements, and conclusions, I applied the outcome of Research Genre Production, navigating genre constraints to meet audience expectations and ensure clarity. The creative and stylistic choices, including the dramatic tone and integration of investigative storytelling, allowed me to explore Multiple Ways of Writing by blending factual reporting with narrative flair. This highlighted how multimodal techniques, such as tone, diction, and narrative pacing, can enhance engagement while maintaining professional credibility.
Finally, generating and evaluating possible explanations for the crime exercised my skills in Generating Inquiry, as I developed hypotheses, considered multiple perspectives, and structured evidence to support reasoned conclusions. Through this project, I gained a deeper appreciation for how genre, style, and investigative reasoning intersect to produce compelling, credible writing.
ePortfolio reflection #3
In my ePortfolio Reflection #3, I engaged with the outcome of Generating Inquiry by using the Arctic Monkeys’ official website as a starting point for asking questions about how digital design communicates identity, engages audiences, and shapes user experience. Rather than simply describing the site, I examined how its minimalist aesthetic, navigation choices, and multimodal elements reflect the band’s style and purpose. This process pushed me to think critically about how websites function as rhetorical texts, how colors, layout, imagery, and structure work together to create meaning for specific audiences. As I evaluated the site, I also generated new questions about what was missing. Noticing the lack of an “About” section led me to consider the role of storytelling and background information in deepening a visitor’s connection to an artist. This inquiry helped me better understand how digital platforms balance aesthetics, functionality, and narrative. Through this assignment, I learned that inquiry does not always come from academic texts; it can emerge from analyzing everyday digital environments and questioning how they can communicate, persuade, and represent identity.
Final ePortfolio Reflection
Throughout this course, I have come to understand writing as a dynamic, inquiry-driven, and research-oriented activity shaped by credibility, curiosity, analysis, and revision. As I look back on the work I’ve completed, including my Reading Responses and my major research project, I can see how each assignment helped me engage with the four ENC 1102 course outcomes. These responses did more than just meet the course requirements, they helped me strengthen my research practices, refine my thinking, and develop a more intentional approach to academic writing. I now feel more confident in my ability to evaluate sources, generate meaningful questions, analyze primary data, and revise with purpose based on feedback and assessment.
Generating Inquiry
One of my earliest realizations this semester was that strong writing begins with a meaningful question. In Reading Response 4: Exigency, I learned that inquiry is driven by urgency, what Vieregge describes as the “reason why my message is indispensable.” I had struggled in the past to find purpose in assigned prompts, often feeling disconnected from the topics. This reading helped me understand that curiosity itself can create exigency if a writer raises a question the audience genuinely wants answered. Applying this idea led me to develop my research question about how modern documentaries use fear-based appeals to influence public perception. This outcome taught me that inquiry is not accidental; it emerges from identifying a real need, gap, or tension within a conversation. That shift allowed my research topic to become something I was invested in rather than something I was completing out of obligation.
Information Literacy
Developing a strong research question also required understanding how to evaluate and work with information responsibly. In Reading Response 3: Primary Research Methods, I explored the research strategies that would best support my project, particularly content analysis, textual analysis, visual analysis, and comparative analysis. These methods helped me approach documentaries like The Social Dilemma and Blackfish with clear criteria for analyzing patterns in language, imagery, and structure. I also learned about the ethical responsibility researchers have when presenting information, especially when dealing with topics that involve fear, persuasion, or social influence. This outcome helped me distinguish between simply finding sources and critically selecting methods that align with my research goals. It shifted my understanding of information literacy from “is the source credible?” to “am I analyzing this material ethically, accurately, and intentionally?”
Research Genre Production
Genre became another crucial part of my growth as a research writer. In Reading Response 2: Genre Identification and Analysis, I examined music release announcements and how they communicate through predictable conventions. These announcements use visuals, promotional language, slang, and calls to action to excite fans and shape expectations. This analysis helped me understand that academic research also has genre expectations, such as clear claims, evidence-based reasoning, and integration of scholarly sources. Recognizing these patterns allowed me to see research writing as something I can navigate with intention, rather than something mysterious or intimidating. This outcome made genre feel less like a restriction and more like a guide, helping me make purposeful choices about tone, structure, and organization in my own writing.
Multiple Ways of Writing
Before this course, I mostly associated “good writing” with formal essays. But Reading Response 5: Breaking Source Hunting Myths showed me that credibility and citation practices change across contexts. Harrington’s and Purdy’s arguments helped me see that journalists, marketers, academics, and digital platforms all establish credibility differently. For example, journalists cite by naming sources directly, while marketers rely on testimonials. These differences illustrated how writing is multimodal and multiliterate, meaning writers draw on multiple languages, visual systems, and media forms to communicate effectively. This outcome helped me realize that academic citation is just one of many ways writers build trust. It made me more flexible in how I approach writing situations, open to using images, hyperlinks, or other modes when appropriate, and more aware of the many literacies involved in making a text credible.
Contributing Knowledge
As I moved into analyzing primary data, I learned how writers contribute new knowledge through interpretation. In Reading Response 6: Analyzing Primary Data, I explored coding as a method for identifying themes and patterns in data. Denny and Clark describe coding as seeing what “emerges or seems significant,” which requires openness rather than forcing data to fit predetermined categories. I valued this outcome because it taught me how academic knowledge is created, not by repeating existing information, but by analyzing evidence ethically and making connections supported by the data. Coding also reminded me of the responsibility researchers have to represent participants honestly and transparently. This outcome strengthened my understanding of research as a process of discovery and interpretation rather than simply compiling facts.
Revision
Finally, Reading Response 7: Rethinking Assessment helped reshape my relationship with revision. Before this course, I often viewed grades as the end point of an assignment. Reynolds, Davis, and Friend challenged that idea, explaining that evaluation is based on shared academic standards and that meaningful feedback, not just letter grades, is what actually supports growth. I began to see revision as an active process of negotiating suggestions, re-seeing my writing, and making intentional improvements. This outcome helped me appreciate feedback as part of the writing process rather than a judgment of my ability. The reading also made me more aware of how instructors evaluate not just final products, but the thinking and development that lead to them.
Overall, this course helped me understand research writing as a flexible, ethical, inquiry-driven process. Each assignment in my ePortfolio reflects a different part of that growth, whether I was generating a meaningful question, evaluating information, navigating genre conventions, analyzing primary data, or revising with intention. Across it all, I’ve learned to see myself not only as a student completing tasks but as a writer capable of entering broader conversations with purpose, clarity, and confidence.