Unit 3 Reflection

My Unit 3 project was the final stage of an argument that developed throughout this course. In Unit 2, I wrote about how artificial intelligence is changing sports, but also why it should not replace human judgment. My earlier research used sources such as Forbes, The Atlantic, TED, and Sportico to examine how AI is already influencing scouting, leadership, injuries, and decision-making in sports. That research gave me a strong foundation, but Unit 3 challenged me to do something different. Instead of only presenting ideas through writing, I had to transform my argument into a digital medium. I chose to create an iMovie video because it matched both my topic and my audience better than a traditional essay.

My topic focused on sports, technology, emotion, and decision-making. Those ideas are easier to communicate through visuals, pacing, movement, and sound than through paragraphs alone. Sports are usually experienced through highlights, reactions, momentum shifts, and memorable moments. Because of that, a video format felt more natural than another text-based project. I also considered my projected audience when making this decision. Many people interested in sports consume content through YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and highlight pages rather than long academic articles. If I wanted my message to connect with real viewers, I needed to present it in a form they would actually choose to watch. Creating an iMovie allowed me to meet that audience where they already are.

Another reason I chose iMovie was because I wanted to challenge myself while still using a platform I could realistically manage. I am not an advanced editor, but I knew I could learn enough to make something clear, polished, and effective. I wanted the project to feel professional without becoming overly complicated. One lesson I learned in this course is that stronger communication is not always about doing more. Sometimes it is about making better choices. Because of that, I focused on clarity, pacing, and purpose instead of unnecessary length or effects.

My final video was concise, but every scene had a purpose. I opened with the question, “What if AI helped make that decision?” because I wanted to create curiosity immediately. From there, I used sports analytics dashboards, scouting visuals, and injury prevention examples to show how AI is already being used in professional sports. Then I shifted into the human side of sports by showing team chemistry and emotional moments. That contrast was central to my argument. AI can process huge amounts of data and recognize patterns, but it cannot fully measure leadership, heart, pressure, trust, or chemistry. Using video helped me make that contrast stronger than writing alone could have.

When it came time to submit my Unit 3 project to my projected audience, I treated it like something meant to be watched and shared rather than just graded. My audience was sports fans and students who are interested in how technology is changing the world around them. I uploaded the video in a format that could be easily viewed and shared publicly on my blog. I also introduced it with a short cover message that explained the purpose of the project. My pitch was simple: sports are becoming more data-driven every year, but the human side of the game still matters. I wanted viewers to think about whether technology should guide decisions or control them. Instead of presenting the project like an academic assignment, I framed it like a conversation starter.

I also shared the video in a more immediate setting by showing it to a few friends in my fraternity who were in the room with me at the time: Jack Wilkos and Benji Pelegri. That moment was useful because it gave me a real audience reaction instead of only imagining one. They watched the full video and immediately understood the message. Jack told me, “The way you switched from all the stats and charts into the team huddle part made the point clear right away. It didn’t feel like school work, it felt like something people would actually watch.” That comment mattered to me because one of my biggest goals was avoiding a boring or overly academic tone. I wanted the project to feel natural and engaging, especially for viewers who might not normally choose to watch a class assignment. Hearing that it felt like real content showed me that my rhetorical choices were working.

Benji gave different feedback that also helped me. He said, “I liked that you weren’t saying AI is bad or good. You showed both sides and then landed on a smart conclusion.” I appreciated that response because balance was important to my argument. I did not want to make a simplistic claim that AI should be rejected, nor did I want to act like data solves everything. My actual position was more nuanced: AI is valuable when used as a tool, but dangerous when treated as a replacement for human judgment. Benji’s comment showed me that viewers could understand that middle ground. If I had more time, I would build on that even further by adding one more real-world example where human instincts succeeded over what statistics predicted.

Ideally, I would like my audience to use this project as a way to think more critically about technology beyond sports. Even though my examples focused on scouting, injuries, and strategy, the larger issue applies to many parts of life. As AI becomes more common in business, education, hiring, and entertainment, people will need to decide how much power it should have. My hope is that viewers come away with a mindset of balance. Technology can improve decisions, but people still need to provide judgment, ethics, context, and emotional intelligence. If someone finished my video and started debating that idea with a friend, then I would consider the project successful.

Peer feedback also played an important role in how I shaped my final project. During peer review, one classmate commented, “Your argument becomes most interesting when you focus on what AI cannot measure, not just what it can do.” That comment stood out to me because it identified the most original part of my argument. Many people can explain how AI helps with data, predictions, and efficiency, but the deeper question is what gets lost when decisions rely too heavily on numbers. After reading that feedback, I changed my focus. Instead of spending most of the project explaining analytics tools, I made the emotional and human side of sports the center of the video.

You can see that influence directly in my final project through lines such as “But numbers are not everything. AI still cannot measure leadership, chemistry, confidence, or heart.” That section became one of the most important moments in the video because it moved the project beyond description and into argument. I also ended with the statement, “Data can guide the game, but people should decide it,” which directly reflects the same idea. Even though the comment was short, it helped me recognize where my strongest writing was and pushed me to build the final version around that strength.

My Unit 3 portfolio also made me reflect on how much I improved across all three units. In Unit 1, I focused on rhetorical analysis and learning how audience, purpose, and medium shape communication. That unit helped me understand that strong writing is not only about what you say, but how you say it and who you are saying it to. In Unit 2, I built a researched argument using outside sources, primary research, and counterarguments. I learned how to support a claim with evidence and how to move beyond summary into analysis. Then, in Unit 3, I had to adapt that same argument into a completely different genre while still keeping the message clear. Looking back, I can see growth in my thinking, writing, and ability to make purposeful rhetorical choices.

I also understood that my Unit 3 blog submission was not just another post, but my final portfolio for the course. Because of that, I tried to think beyond simple proofreading and make broader improvements to the blog as a whole. One of the biggest changes I made was working on consistency across the entire site. Earlier in the semester, some of my posts felt more like separate assignments than parts of one portfolio, so I revised them with a more unified look and tone. I updated titles, improved spacing, checked that images and links worked correctly, and made sure the layout looked cleaner and more intentional. I also looked back at older posts and revised places where my ideas were too general or where my analysis needed to go deeper. Instead of leaving earlier work untouched, I treated the portfolio like something that should show growth across the semester.

I also challenged myself to improve the blog based on the expectations of my chosen audience. Since my audience was not just my professor or classmates, I wanted the blog to feel accessible to readers who care about sports and technology but may not know the context of WRT 205. That meant I had to make the blog easier to move through, more visually engaging, and clearer in its purpose. I made sure my writing sounded less like it was only answering a class prompt and more like it was speaking to real readers with an actual interest in the topic. I wanted someone visiting the blog to immediately understand what my argument was, why it mattered, and how each post connected to that larger conversation. In that way, I was not just editing sentences. I was reshaping the blog to feel more professional, connected, and audience-aware.

Looking back across the semester, the biggest lesson I learned is that communication is flexible. A strong idea can take different forms depending on the audience and purpose. The same argument that began as research in Unit 2 became a visual and rhetorical experience in Unit 3. That process showed me that writing is not limited to essays or classroom assignments. It can become something public, creative, and persuasive when adapted thoughtfully. My final portfolio represents more than one completed project. It represents growth in how I research, revise, communicate, and think about audience. My Unit 3 project and reflection are the strongest example of that progress. Data can guide the game, but people should decide it.