Introduction
This assignment was an analysis of the article used in The New York Times Response. It was evaluated for its format, what information it contained, the language that was used, and overall effectiveness of reporting the information.
Peer Review and Instructor Feedback
These three images above are the feedback I received from my instructor for this assignment
Final Draft
Prenatal vs. Postnatal
On March 17, 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine published a research paper called, “A Randomized Trial of Prenatal versus Postnatal Repair of Myelomeningocele.” This study was conducted by a group of scientists, doctors, and nurses from various institutions across the United States. Their objective was to whether prenatal surgery was a better method for treating myelomeningocele, a form of spina bifida, than postnatal surgery. It was concluded that prenatal surgery resulted in improved health for the child compared to postnatal surgery. This research paper was very thorough in presenting its findings using vivid diagrams and charts, proper tense, and the IMRAD format.
The authors of this paper begin by including an abstract. An abstract is generally used to give a concise overview of the entire paper. This section was divided into four categories: background, methods, results, conclusion. Organizing it in this way made it very simple to digest the information. Also, the abstract is written mostly in the past tense, which reinforces the fact that this section is a summary of their findings.
The remainder of the paper is written in the IMRAD format, which begins with an introduction. This introduction provides extensive background on spina bifida, and the various abnormalities children with the disorder have. Since the section is written in the present tense, it shows the reader that this information is still relevant. However, this paper does not present a formal hypothesis in the introduction. Instead, it uses past research to show the inspiration for the current research.
The methods section is the longest part of this paper. Immediately, this shows that the authors took their time to elaborate on the materials they used to conduct the experiment, and the methods they used to collect and analyze their data. Subheadings such as, “Recruitment and Study Population” and “Statistical Analysis” were used to help organize the section, which benefits those who desire to recreate the study. Also, a detailed description of the criteria used for creating the population sample is included. Timelines for when data would be collected and analyzed was also specified. The specificity of this methods section makes it an accurate resource to help recreate the experiment.
After the methods section is the results section. This is where the authors discuss the key findings of their research including data, graphs, and diagrams. Since this study revolved around prenatal surgery, the authors included a step-by-step diagram of the surgery, which makes it easy for non-surgeons to visualize the procedure. Another diagram shows how the original population was separated, and the outcomes of each group. Similar to the methods section, subheadings are used to help categorize the entire section. They describe long-term, immediate, and negative outcomes from the procedure. The section always refers to the data, which demonstrates a strict adherence to objective data. However, there is the usage of the word “better.” The authors write, “the prenatal surgery group had better motor function than the postnatal-surgery group.” Usually, a phrase that refers to a statistic would be used such as, “a higher percentage.” Better is a very connoting word, which should be avoided in scientific writing.
Lastly, the discussion section of this paper provided the major implications of their research. It was written in the past tense which gave the impression that the authors were looking back and commentating on their research. The authors describe how their research provided evidence of the benefits of prenatal surgery myelomeningocele. Limitations regarding the tools used during the surgeries were mentioned, as well as how it could have affected the data. Previous studies were also referenced, which the authors were able to confirm their findings with. The benefits and necessity of this investigation were explained in relation to the past research. No further research questions were posed, which suggests the scope of this topic is limited.
This research paper was formatted in a traditional IMRAD format. Each section’s content consisted of the major elements that were expected, but key components were missing from certain sections. The paper objectively communicates the significance of the data that was collected as well as the methods used to collect that data.
References
Adzick NS, Thom EA, Spong CY, Brock JW, Burrows PK, Johnson MP, Howell LJ, Farrell JA, Dabrowiak ME, Sutton LN, et al. 2011. A Randomized Trial of Prenatal versus Postnatal Repair of Myelomeningocele. The New England Journal of Medicine. [Internet]. [cited 2018 February 14]; Available from: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014379
Self Assessment
For this assignment, I was able to analyze a particular genre and reflect on the strategies the author of that piece used. I noticed the language was very particular in terms of objectivity and specialization. Research papers have an audience of specialists and for this assignment, I was able to take that and condense it into something simpler.
I was able given the opportunity to take a stance in my writing. For this piece, I elaborated on how it followed the traditional format for a research paper, however, it was missing a few major elements. I made the claim that although these things were missing, the paper was able to achieve its goal.
Something I did well was organizing my paper. I dedicated a single paragraph to each section, and thoroughly analyzed the article for tense and major components.
One thing I could improve is my thesis statement. I had a lot of trouble understandings how to formulate a claim for this type of writing. I understand more as I got to the introduction, but the thesis was very weak, to begin with.
Farhan's Writing for the Sciences Portfolio 