Critical Reflection
When I initially began the Rhetoric and Composition concentration at Georgia State University, I understood rhetoric in a limited and somewhat conventional way. I associated it primarily with persuasive language, argumentation, and effective communication. Over the course of this program, that definition has definitely expanded significantly. Rhetoric, as I now understand it, is not only the art of persuasion. It is the study of how meaning is constructed, circulated, authorized, and critiqued within specific historical, cultural, and social contexts. It examines who is allowed to speak, whose narratives are legitimized, and how discourse functions as a mechanism of power.
ENGL 3090: Exposition: History, Theory, and Practice with Dr. Sladky was central to this shift in understanding. Through our engagement with rhetorical theory and the historical development of exposition, I began to see you cannot separate rhetoric from ideology. Our discussions of how texts are shaped by dominant institutions forced me to reconsider myths, histories, and even academic writing itself as rhetorically constructed artifacts rather than neutral containers of truth. My essay, “The Retelling of the Myth of Arwe (Wainaba),” reflects this evolution. What began as a project to retell a regional myth became a study into how narratives are shaped by those in positions of authority and how women and marginalized communities are often misrepresented or erased within those narratives. That assignment was not simply about storytelling. It required research, historical awareness, and an interrogation of current discourse. It made it clear to me that rhetoric operates not only in political speeches or advertisements, but in the foundational stories societies tell about themselves.
Other projects within the concentration reinforced this understanding by forcing me to move beyond surface level interpretation. Across my coursework, I was consistently required to situate texts within broader systems of power, analyze the implications of rhetorical choices, and consider the ethical responsibilities of representation. Rather than asking whether an argument was convincing, I learned to ask whose interests were being served at the moment, what assumptions did it rely on, and what alternative perspectives were being excluded. These habits have reshaped how I read and write in both academic and professional contexts.
My current definition of critical thinking parallels this expanded understanding of rhetoric. Critical thinking is the disciplined practice of interrogating assumptions, evaluating evidence, tracing implications, and remaining attentive to context. Critical thinking is not necessarily synonymous with skepticism. Instead, it requires a willingness to slow down, examine the foundations of a claim, and test it against competing interpretations. Critical thinking also involves recognizing the limits of one’s own perspective and actively seeking out credible sources that challenge or complicate your initial position or opinion.
My work on the Arwe essay provides a concrete example of this practice. Instead of reproducing the myth as it has traditionally been told, I examined scholarly research on Ethiopian historiography, oral tradition, and the politics of myth-making. I questioned why certain depictions persisted and whose voices were absent from the dominant version of the story. This required synthesizing multiple academic sources, evaluating their methodologies, and integrating them into a coherent argument. I had to distinguish between romanticized retellings and historically grounded analysis. The final essay reflects not only research, but a process of sustained questioning and revision as I refined my claims in response to the evidence.
Critical thinking also shaped my approach to multimodal composition. For the multimodal extension of the Arwe project, I initially relied on AI generated images to visually represent the myth. In reflecting on that choice, I recognize the limitations of those images. They lacked historical specificity and may have reinforced inaccurate visual tropes. That realization was itself an act of critical thinking. It required me to evaluate not just the written argument, but the visual rhetoric of my project. If I were to revise that component, I would recreate the images with greater historical sensitivity and intention. The process taught me that rhetorical responsibility extends way beyond text to every mode of representation.
Throughout the concentration, I have grown most significantly. Earlier in my academic career, I treated writing as a linear process. I believed that strong writing emerged primarily from innate skill and clarity. While clarity remains essential, I now understand drafting is a form of thinking. It is during revision that arguments become sharper, evidence is more strategically integrated, and underlying issues are clarified or reconsidered.
In my earlier drafts of major assignments, including the Arwe essay, I tended to foreground narrative or thematic interest before fully articulating my theoretical framework. Through feedback and sustained practice, I learned to support my claims more explicitly using rhetorical theory. I became more attentive to transitions, to the relationship between paragraphs, and to the importance of evidence. Editing also shifted from correcting grammar to refining structure, precision, and tone. I now approach revision by asking whether each section advances the central claim, whether my sources are doing analytical work rather than only appearing as support, and whether my language is empathetic.
My views on research have also evolved. Initially, research felt like a requirement to substantiate an argument I had already formed. Over time, I began to see research as part of the process in generating the work. Engaging deeply with academic journals often reshaped my thesis rather than simply reinforcing it. In the Arwe project, for example, my original interest was primarily narrative. It was through research into rhetoric and historiography that the essay became an argument about power, representation, and mythmaking. That shift reflects growth in how I learned to allow evidence to complicate my assumptions.
Beyond individual assignments, the concentration has strengthened my professional voice. Writing for an audience of faculty in Rhetoric and Composition has required precision and theoretical awareness. At the same time, preparing this portfolio with graduate admissions committees and hiring professionals in mind has challenged me to articulate the broader applications of my work. I have learned to frame my projects not only as classroom exercises, but as demonstrations of analysis, ethical discourse, and research.
My growth is also visible in my confidence as a writer addressing culturally and historically significant topics. Writing about the myth of Arwe required balancing personal investment with scholarly distance. I had to resist romanticizing and instead ground my analysis in credible sources. That balance reflects a maturation in my academic voice. I no longer view writing as self expression alone. I understand it as participation in ongoing scholarly conversations that require accountability and evidence.
If I compare my current work to my earlier writing, the difference lies in depth and discipline. My arguments are more carefully structured. My use of sources is more integrated and purposeful. My attention to rhetorical context is more deliberate. I am more comfortable engaging theory and less inclined to treat it as abstract or detached from lived realities. Most importantly, I have developed a habit of questioning my own assumptions before asking readers to accept my claims.
The Rhetoric and Composition concentration has ultimately taught me that rhetoric is not distant from public life. It shapes society, law, policy, education, history, and cultural memory. Understanding rhetoric helps us analyze how power operates through language and representation. Similarly, critical thinking allows us to respond responsibly to that reality. Together, these practices have reshaped not only how I write, but how I interpret the world around me.
As I move forward into graduate study and professional spaces, I carry with me a more expansive understanding of rhetoric, a disciplined approach to critical thinking, and a commitment to ethical representation. My portfolio reflects that development. Each project demonstrates analytical skill and precision, stronger research integration, and a deeper awareness of the stakes of writing. The concentration has not simply improved my technical skills. It has fundamentally changed how I think, how I question, and how I engage with texts.