Medina |1

Sergio Medina
December 7, 2014
Writing 37
Professor Haas
Final Reflection
Writing 37 proved to be a valuable instrument in which I built a strong foundation to do
better in future writing classes. Writing 37 has helped me improve my communication skills by
focusing on critical reading and rhetoric. This was accomplished through analyzing a genre in
context, reading scholarly texts, looking more in depth to academic writing, learning the
importance of peer review, collaborating with my peers, reinforcing grammar through connect
assignments, concentrating on metacognition, and considering habits of mind when doing all my
assignments. Through my reflection I hope to show how much Ive grown as rhetorical
communicator.
Through analyzing the detective genre and putting it into context of the Victorian Era, I
have learned the importance of why it is done and ultimately know how to apply that knowledge
to future writing classes. The part that I found fascinating, and opened up my curiosity, was
learning about the Victorian Era. Doing the Victorian Era wikis and presentation was an
essential part in seeing the impact that the era had on the detective genre. This made me realize
that each genre can be put in context of the time; which leads to seeing how the detective genre
has changed and evolved over time to adapt to the 21st century audience. Learning about the
modern adaptation of the detective genre was facilitated by reading press articles, doing the
cinematic wiki and presenting, and lastly by doing the rhetorical analysis essay. The biggest

Medina |2

thing I took from this is being able to, just like authors Conan Doyle and Director Guy Riche, see
what audience I have to target in order to appeal to them.
Scholarly writings were a good portion part of writing 37 and probably the most difficult
thing for me to do; but it taught me persistence. Personally, I found scholarly texts completely
different from other readings because of the complexity of them. It took a lot of close reading in
order to decipher what the scholars were trying to say, because, as Professor Haas stated, that its
important not to assume what they meant. I had to develop a different reading process in order to
help me understand them. The different process that I developed included separating different
parts of the essay and looking at them closely and then seeing how they prove the scholars thesis.
I believe with my effort, Ive only done average in understanding these texts, but I believe being
able to understand the texts more easily comes with practice, help, and engagement. I found that
engagement was important because it made me invest into what I was learning. I practiced this
by emailing Professor Haas when I couldnt clearly identify a passage from Paneks book,
Beginnings. By doing this I invested in my education and what I was learning by taking the
initiative to ask for help.
The knowledge I gathered about academic came mainly from writing my Literature Review
Essay and Rhetorical Essay. When it came to the Literature Review I learned what is needed to
have effective critical reading and critical thinking throughout the essay; such as having a strong
controlling idea, integrating my scholarly sources, and most importantly the difference between
synthesis and summary. When it came to the rhetorical analysis essay I learned what it meant to
have effective rhetorical knowledge when it came to my ethos and thesis. I also learnt what it
meant to have effective sources and integration of them. From my literature review the paragraph
I revised was, Conan Doyle attributed many characteristics to Sherlock Holmes that made him

Medina |3

one of the greatest detectives; one of them being his impeccable skill of observation in which
scholars like Binyon and Delameter can agree. This became a trademark to Sherlock Holmes and
had become part of the detective genre. Conan Doyle established observation as a convention of
Holmess character, and this is a convention the scholars have pointed to as a defining
characteristic of the detective character. T.J. Binyon, an award winning author, writes in his book
Murder Will Out, Holmes occasionally varying his method by exercising his deductive flair not
on clients, but on objects belonging to them (Binyon 11). I choose this passage because it went
through many revisions and Im happy with the outcome. It needed revision primarily because of
sentence structure and grammar mistakes. It needed to be more coherent and have more flow to
it. My revision were based off my reviews that included grammar mistakes, a better analysis, and
finally a better controlling idea. For my Rhetorical Analysis essay the passage that I decided to
revise was, Sherlock Holmes is presented to the 21st Century audience as a much more action
fighter type character. Conan Doyles Sherlock was presented as an arrogant big headed
detective and nothing more. An excerpt from The Hound of the Baskervilles by Conan Doyle
best exemplifies it, It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of
light (Doyle loc. 870). Here Sherlock Holmes is shown as very witty and big headed while
giving Watson a back handed compliment at the same time. This paragraph needed revision
because it has no real analysis according to the rubric and had a substantial amount of repetition.
The revision process proved to be satifying actually, despite my initial perception that it would
be hard and tiring. It was fulfilling, personally, to see my final product be something that I can be
proud of.

Medina |4

As best said by from the research paper, It is Better to Give Then it is to Receive, states that
students taught to give peer feedback improve in their own writing abilities (Lundstrom 1).
The quote best explains what I feel about peer reviewing in the course. I never really thought
much about the benefits about reviewing someone elses work before taking this class; but I
came to realize that it really does help because you are exposed to the material twice as much
and you apply to whatever you say to the person to your own work. Specifically for me, I found
that the Literature Review essay peer review proved to be most helpful, specifically comments
from Andre Lu. As a result, in future classes I will make sure to have peer review other
classmates work and vice versa.
Collaboration was an essential part of the class, and for good reason. Collaborating with
others will continue to be part of the college experience and onwards into my future job. I
specifically liked my first group because I think we all got along and worked well together. As a
result I think this is where my best work came from when it came to presentations and my wikis.
I participated on different levels when it came to collaborating. Sometimes I took a leadership
role or more of a supportive role. This became especially evident when my group did our first
wiki when we were parceling out the work and someone took charge. While others took a
following role. Collaboration for me was personally something I was not looking forward to but
in the end Im happy that it was part of it.
Connect assignments in general reinforced many concepts that I learned throughout the
years. Based on my data from Connect the thing I struggled with the most was grammar and
common sentence problems specifically recognizing verbs. I did a recharge on the assignment
to better understand what I didnt. Other assignments that I recharged on were integrating source

Medina |5

material. In the end Connect assignments, while tiring, proved to be a great reinforce to my
grammar skills.
The most important lessons from this class were first, collaborating with a group and
realizing that it could be a good thing. Second, would be learning the effectiveness of peer
reviewing. Lastly, it would becoming a better rhetorical communicator. Writing 37 overall set
me on the path to become a future well versed rhetoric. From this class a good handful of things
can be transferred over, especially persistence to continue to try in future class.