ENC1102 Course Reflection

Prior to this course, I did not think that I would be engaging myself into something that I actually enjoyed researching about. To be honest with myself, if time permitted, I could have edited my assignments more thoroughly. At times, it was stressful and tedious but after doing this research, I found an improvement in my writing skills and I realized how passionate and determined I am to become a pediatrician.  

First off, my annotated bibliography was effective in showing an adequate introduction and clear and concise point of views from different scholarly voices. In this section of my introduction I provided a glimpse of the conversation that I intended to research about. “Do we really know how children interact with their doctors and their medical staff? What can we do to solve this problem for future generations? If this is still occurring, can we find new and improved methods to overcome these fears? With that being said, my experiment will hopefully examine that gap more in depth.” Also, for each source, I made it clear as to why the source relates to my research; for example, “This study was related to my research topic because pediatricians are highly valued by families with children.”

However, under outcome two, it states that students should “utilize multiple kinds of evidence gathered from various sources (primary and secondary—e.g. library research, interviews, questionnaires, observations, cultural artifacts) in order to support writing goals.” Although I had sources from different types of articles, magazines, and journals, I believe that I could have done better in looking for evidence to support my final paper.

Not to mention, the literature review is very important in the final research paper since it shows where the conversation started and how far the research has expanded. I created drafts of my literature review that “demonstrated substantial and successful revision” (Outcome 5) by showing my effort in drafting my literature review. In my first draft of my literature review, some sections imitated the annotated bibliography. For instance, I wrote “Colino and Pearlman stress that a parent should never threaten to take their child to the doctor if he or she is misbehaving. Associating the doctors with a negative connotation may result in bad behavior in the child. During the office visit, parents must be able to control themselves before they can control their children. In Tates, et al. experiment with the doctor-parent-child relationship, he and his team proved that 90% of the visits resulted in a non-participatory way.” This paragraph needed to be organized by ideas not by authors.  After a few drafts, I rewrote this section to connect the ideas. “For example, if a parent threatens to take their child to the doctor if he or she is misbehaving, the child will associate the doctors with a negative connotation that may result in bad behavior in the child (Colino; Pearlman). Negative influences from the parent may result in complications and less cooperation from the child during future doctor visits. During the office visits, parents must be able to control themselves before they can control their children (Tates, et al.). It is essential to let the child speak his or her mind when the doctor is directing the attention to the child (Tates, et al.) Children need to have a say, in regards to their health, in order to voice their concerns to their doctor.  Letting the child participate will encourage the child to develop a healthy bond with the physician (Tates, et al.).” This rewritten draft was more effective in showing the connection between ideas among the different authors.

Likewise, in a different section, I wrote “Further research in regards to the fear of doctors incorporates how Salmela’s, et al. findings were indirectly related to Colino, Pearlman, and Pearson but still proved to fit the category.” I did not specifically show how Salmela’s findings were indirectly connected to Colino, Pearlman, and Pearson’s studies. In my final draft, I connected the ideas with the statement, “Children may fear doctors because they fear the unexpected; their fears may also increase if other factors such as illness and an unstable environment interfere with their state of mind.”  

I believe that I used constructive criticism as listed under outcome 5,  “responding to substantive issues raised by instructor and peer feedback” to help me edit my assignments. In my last draft of my literature review, I connected ideas and added citations, that professor Longhany deemed necessary, to show whose voice is speaking throughout the paper. Listed under outcome 3, "demonstrating responsible use of genre conventions, including formatting, document design, and system of documenting sources (e.g. MLA)" was shown in my paper by use of MLA formatting for citations and headings. 

          Formatting is important however, the content is the main concern of any paper.  In the beginning of this course, I had to figure out how to organize my ideas and ultimately, I had to figure out how to conduct my own experiment in order to produce effective content. Outcome two of the course outline states that students will engage in a meaningful, dynamic, and inquiry-based research process. I fulfilled that outcome through the process of discovering the right method for my experiment. I Initially intended to give a survey to my participants in order to examine how their past experiences and interactions with their doctors affected their relationship with their doctors. However, after constant revisions and peer reviews, I found that the survey was ineffective because it did not fit the gap that I was looking for. I then went to the Creative School for Children on campus to see if I could interview the children but that method failed to work due to the fact that the children were too young to understand my research questions. Then I decided to do a textual analysis based on three videos that I found that would be suitable for my research question. In my analysis I broke down the three videos and found overarching themes that showed the improvement the child-doctor interaction. I had to watch the videos more than three times each in order to catch every detail and to analyze differences among the videos. For example, I showed how the use of accommodation was depicted in all the videos and that that trend improved the interaction between the child and the doctor. This method enabled me to analyze texts to test out my inquiry question.

            Furthermore, I “persuasively articulated the stakes of at least one argument (why what is being argued matters)” in my results and discussion section. I wrote “The underlying theme of my research depicted how fear came from the unknown. As soon as the knowledge of tools and the procedures are identified, the fear dissipates. If children knew what to expect from the doctors, they would be less afraid.” I showed how this finding serves as the gap that was missing in the research. 

            Overall, I have shown both strong and weak samples of my work. This course taught me more than doing research. It taught me that one try is not enough. Constant editing and revisions will lead to exceptional work.