Course Reflection

Outcome 1:

           Prior to the course, I had some knowledge of rhetorical situation. This background information, was taught to me through my English composition one class, which was paradoxically, taught by you. Having this background knowledge allowed me to expand my understanding and apply it to my research. Over the course, I decided to base my research on the misconceptions people have about charities. Applying rhetorical situation to this includes discovering how communication within this society affects its outcomes. In my research, I come to several conclusions on how this takes place. Discourse community is a group of people who share basic knowledge and values to achieve a goal. This was also introduced to me through my ENC 1101 class. Correspondingly, I have been able to use the background information in this present course. The discourse community of charities can include the donors or even the non-profit organizations. It depends on which aspect you would like to focus on. For example, a non-profit organization is its own discourse community since it is communicating to public reasons why people should donate to their foundation. Likewise, the donors are their own discourse community since they have the similar goal of donating to a charity.

Lastly, I learned throughout the course the actual meaning of inquiry based research. Inquiry based research entails “looking for answers to questions that others might consider interesting”. This kind of research is considered different in the way of conduction since it requires you to refrain from conducting research that you as a researcher already has a strong opinion of already. However, this does not me refrain from using a topic you are interested in, it just means to use a topic in which you can elaborate discussion on rather than focusing in on a debate or a straightforward answer. For example when proposing my research question I exhibited difficulties with formulating an open-ended question. Overtime it shifted from a question in which research was required to only answer a question to a question which entailed critical thinking and synthesis. For example I began with the question, “what are the misconceptions people have about charities?” this transitioned to an inquiry-based worthy question of “why do people have misconceptions about charities?”

Outcome 2:

In this course we had to demonstrate our abilities to successfully use sources to support our research topic. For one class we were required to meet in the library to learn how to use the library’s database. We were taught the different ways you could rephrase topics to gain the most relevant information. In our annotated bibliography we were required to locate many primary resources related to our topics that would help us synthesize information for discussion. Many of the sources I used for my annotated bibliography were also used for finalizing my research.

 Outcome 3:

            Since extensive amount of research is needed to answer a research question, knowing how to correctly cite, or give credit to the original author’s ideas is vital. Several times throughout my research paper I often quote another author’s ideas. This allows me to gain more ethos in my paper. Since I want to sound credible, at often times support my own ideas with another researcher’s work. In class we often discussed the correct ways to cite a research paper. For example, if your topic related more to psychology or current date issues it is best to use the APA style of writing. However, if dates were not an issue with your topic, MLA is recommended. In my research paper, I often quoted an author, Dan Pallotta. He is a spokes person fighting against the public’s misconceptions of charities.  Another author I often quote is Suzanne Perry. Her ideas are similar to those of Pallotta’s. In order to link these ideas, I use intersexuality. This is the relationship between texts and how they support my research.  

Outcome 4:

      My main claim in my research paper is people have misconceptions when donating to charities. They often think that their funds do not go to the cause more than they would like. For example, an excerpt from my research is “It would be easy to think that no problems would arise from this humanitarian issue; however, many charities seem to find themselves drowning in a pool of misconceptions causing a shortfall in helping their mission.” This sentence sets the context for my paper. When elaborating this issue, I make sure to address why perceptions of charities effect these organizations and their ability to attain funds. During a couple of our class sessions we discussed how our research would present us a gap. I believe that this section caused me the most trouble with figuring out. With time, I was able to formulate a gap that would be specific to my research topic. My gap is, “people want to give back and that charities are designed to help people fulfill that need”.

Outcome 5:
       Throughout the semester, peer editing was one of the most substantial sources for the final outcome of my paper. Peer editing sessions allowed me to facilitate ideas that I would not have otherwise thought of. A beneficial peer editing session that I enjoyed this semester included learning about the importance of getting rid of empty words and phrases. For example instead of using an expression such as “due to the fact that”, the word “because” should replace it. This gives the sentence a more direct and less wordy purpose. Much of the work for this class includes several drafts to ensure the fluidity of the writing. My literature review had many drafts before I finalized the copy I would turn in. Going to office hours really helped me develop ideas for the gap of my paper and the writing center proofread my paper for grammar and punctuation mistakes.