Unit 1 Reflection

    When I first started this unit, my research question was honestly broad. I knew I was interested in writing and technology, but I did not yet understand what specifically I wanted to argue. Looking back at my Curated Source Collection, I can see how much more focused my thinking became. At the end of my project, I wrote that “technology does not replace writing. Instead, it amplifies it.” That sentence clearly shows how my thinking shifted. I moved from simply asking how technology changes writing to asking how it increases the power and consequences of writing.

    One of the biggest changes in my process was moving from summary to analysis. Early in the unit, I found myself explaining what each source said instead of explaining how it worked. For example, in my final version of Source 2, I focused on the quote “We created a new product category.” Instead of just repeating that idea, I explained that creating a category requires explanation, branding, and repeated messaging. That was a moment where I started unpacking language rather than summarizing events. I realized that the phrase “created a new product category” shows how writing shapes how consumers understand reality, not just how they buy products.

    A similar shift happened in my analysis of the KEK AG case. I quoted the line, “Sure, but it isn’t only about money, you know.” At first, that sentence seems simple. But when I analyzed it, I explained how that moment changes the direction of the entire financial discussion. It shows that even advanced financial models depend on human priorities and judgment. That deeper explanation is something I struggled with at the beginning of the unit. I had to push myself to slow down and really ask why certain sentences mattered instead of moving on too quickly.

    In terms of source quality, I feel confident in the three sources I selected. They come from different genres, including a news feature, two teaching cases, and a TEDx talk. Each one contributes something different to the conversation I’m building. The New York Times article gave me a cultural and emotional lens. The Xiaoxiandun case showed how writing shapes branding and customer understanding. The KEK AG case focused on financial decisions and how information is presented inside a company. The TEDx talk added a more modern example of how writing works on social media. Together, these sources helped me see that writing operates in many different spaces, not just one.

    I also made one important change during the process. At first, I was planning to use the Fyre Festival case as my fourth source. However, I decided to replace it with the TEDx talk because it connected more directly to my main idea about how technology amplifies writing. The Fyre case focused more on failure and consequences, while the TEDx talk explained from the inside how influencer marketing works and why it is persuasive. Switching the source made my collection stronger because it aligned better with my evolving focus on how digital writing increases impact.

    Technology influenced how I created this project as well. Because this was a blog post and not a traditional paper, I had to think about presentation differently. I embedded hyperlinks directly under each source title so readers could immediately access them. I organized the post with clear spacing between sources to make it easier to follow. I also paid closer attention to how quotes were integrated visually and rhetorically. Writing for a public blog made me more aware that structure and readability affect how arguments are received, which changed how I revised my work.

    When I think about the quality of sources in this topic right now, I notice that many discussions focus either on creativity or on business. There are fewer sources that connect emotional meaning, financial modeling, and influencer marketing together in one conversation. That gap is something I could explore further. For example, I am interested in whether the amplification of writing through technology always increases impact, or if it sometimes decreases depth. That question could guide my next units.

    I can see myself continuing to use at least two of these sources in future assignments. In my portfolio, I wrote that the Xiaoxiandun case shows how digital writing “shapes customer belief and brand authority.” Looking back at that line, I realize that this idea could be expanded further. The case does more than describe a business strategy. It shows how repeated messaging and clear positioning actually define how a product is understood. The KEK AG case is also useful because I explained that technology “amplifies the power of how information is written and presented.” That sentence connects financial modeling to communication. Together, these sources create a foundation for exploring how language shapes decisions in both public and private settings.

    This unit challenged me more than I expected. At the beginning, I was worried that my ideas were too simple. I also struggled with fully unpacking quotes instead of just including them. I had to revise multiple times to strengthen my analysis and make sure I was not just describing what happened in each source. That revision process forced me to think more critically and intentionally. If anything in this reflection still feels slightly polished, it is because I am still learning how to balance confidence in my ideas with honesty about my struggles.

    Overall, this unit helped me understand that writing and technology are not separate topics. Technology increases the reach, speed, and consequences of writing. That realization shaped my final research question and will likely continue to shape my work in the next units. Instead of just asking how technology changes writing, I am now asking how it increases the stakes of writing, and how that increased power can either build credibility or create harm depending on how it is used.