Welcome to Emonie's Portfolio
Why are you here?
My portfolio is a testament to my dedication to becoming a CRNA in Miami. As part of my journey, my portfolio will showcase both my technical prowess and my growth as a writer. This is important in the medical field because the whole system is held together by documentation. Not having strong technical skills can lead to documentation errors, which can then lead to medical errors, potentially resulting in a life-threatening occurrence. I'm committed to providing engaging, insightful content that allows you to gain insight into my dream and passion, as well as how growing my skills will aid in turning my dream into a reality. Explore how my unique blend of skills can benefit you.
Showcasing my work
Hello everyone! Here you will find a gallery of my original and revised technical documents. This section also includes a review of each of the original documents and forms the basis for the revised documents. I am hoping this portion of my portfolio will give you a look into my growth.
Audience Analysis (Original)
Audience Analysis ( Revised)
Review
"You chose a strong topic, and the audience for an IKEA desk assembly manual makes sense. The report covers the required categories and includes several relevant points about young adults, visual instructions, social media support, and global accessibility.
However, the biggest concern is that the report appears to be 98% AI generated and does not show enough original voice or specific analysis. The work needs more personal engagement, clearer source integration, and more direct examples from the actual manual.
In future work, focus on developing the analysis in your own words, using specific examples, and clearly disclosing any AI tools used."
Professor Caroline Davis
Research Proposal (Original)
Research Proposal (Revised)
Review
"Emonie, your proposal has a lot of strengths because the topic feels practical, timely, and easy to connect to everyday life. I like that you are not just pointing out that smart thermostats save energy, but actually thinking through how people would learn about them, install them, and get support using them. The structure, budget, and overall plan give the paper a solid foundation. One important concern, though, is that this draft is showing 100% AI. Per the course policy, AI generated writing should stay under 20%, and any AI use must be cited. Because of that, I need to see much more of you in the writing. For the final, focus on rewriting this in your own voice, adding more specific details about how the program would work for real homeowners, and using your sources more directly in the body so the project feels more natural, developed, and clearly yours. If you would like line by line comments on the draft, feel free to email me."
Professor Caroline Davis
Recommendation Report (Original)
Recommendation Report (Revised)
Review
"Emonie, you have a strong topic and a well-organized report, especially in the way you compare the status quo, programmable thermostats, smart thermostats, and full home energy audits. The structure is easy to follow, and your recommendation for smart thermostats makes sense because it balances energy savings, cost, accessibility, and scalability. Which works well here is that you are thinking beyond the device itself and considering adoption barriers, homeowner education, privacy concerns, rebates, utility partnerships, and long-term monitoring. Those details show growth from the original proposal because the report moves from simply suggesting smart thermostats to thinking about how adoption could actually happen.
However, there are two major concerns that need to be addressed before the final portfolio. First, this submission is showing 100% AI. If Grammarly, ChatGPT, or any other AI-based writing or editing software was used, it must be identified on the References page, along with a brief explanation of how it was used. For example, if Grammarly was used for grammar, clarity, sentence-level editing, or organization, that needs to be stated clearly.
Second, the final source listed does not appear to be real or verifiable. The Smith, J. (2022) article should be removed unless you can prove it exists through a credible database or publication. Using a made-up or unverifiable source is a serious research issue because it weakens the credibility of the entire report. For the final portfolio, replace that source with a real, credible source on smart thermostats, energy savings, or residential energy efficiency, and make sure the body of the report includes matching in-text citations. You have a good foundation, but the final version needs honest source use, transparent AI/tool citation, and verified research so the report can meet the expectations of a formal academic and technical writing assignment."
Professor Caroline Davis