Midterm Portfolio Document Godishala PDF

Preview

Summary

Midterm Portfolio Doc...

Description

Midterm Portfolio Prashant Godishala

Statement of Academic Integrity My signature below certifies that I have complied with the University of Pennsylvania's Code of Academic Integrity in completing this portfolio. Prashant Sai Godishala

Name (printed)

Prashant Sai Godishala (3/3/17)

Signature/Date

1

Midterm Portfolio Prashant Godishala

Table of Contents STATEMENT OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY .................................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................2 COVER LETTER.............................................................................................................................3 LITERATURE REVIEW & ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ............................................................4 2ND DRAFT: REVIEW ............................................................................................................................4 2ND DRAFT: POST-OUTLINE ...................................................................................................................6 1ST DRAFT: REVIEW.............................................................................................................................8 1ST DRAFT: PRE-OUTLINE ................................................................................................................... 10 1ST DRAFT: POST-OUTLINE ................................................................................................................. 12 PEER REVIEWS OF MY LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 14 1/1 PEER REVIEW (FOR DRAFT 1) ........................................................................................................ 14 MULTIPLE PEER REVIEWS (FOR DRAFT 2) ............................................................................................... 15 Student 1 ................................................................................................................................. 15 Student 2 ................................................................................................................................. 16 Student 3 ................................................................................................................................. 17 REVISION PLANS ........................................................................................................................ 20 DRAFT 1 REVISION PLAN .................................................................................................................... 20 REVIEWS OF COLLEAGUE’S WORK ........................................................................................ 21 1/1 REVIEW ................................................................................................................................... 21 MULTIPLE PEER REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 22 Student 1 ................................................................................................................................. 22 Student 2 ................................................................................................................................. 24 Student 3 ................................................................................................................................. 25 COPY OF COLLEAGUE’S LITERATURE REVIEW (FROM STUDENT 1) ............................... 28 SUMMARY AND OUTLINE OF RESEARCH TEXT ................................................................... 30 GRAMMAR CHECK ..................................................................................................................... 38 ON-DEMAND TIMED WRITING ................................................................................................. 40 DIAGNOSTIC ESSAY ................................................................................................................... 41 BASELINE DOCUMENT ..............................................................................................................42

2

Midterm Portfolio Prashant Godishala

Cover Letter Dear Faculty Reader, I am writing to you today with regards to my midterm portfolio. Through this letter, and the rest of my portfolio, I would like to analyze and evaluate the characteristics and rhetoric of my writing. I would like to begin by examining aspects of my baseline document: a research paper written after the conducting of a scientific study. This research paper details work on the creation of a test to assess a patient’s potential risk for developing oropharyngeal cancer given that said patient is positive for oral human papilloma virus (Oral-HPV). Since this paper has been submitted several competitions for assessment and journals for potential publication, it was written over the course of nearly a year. As such, it has been through numerous revisions, peer reviews, and expert reviews. The document begins with an introduction, which aims to provide background information on the genetics and molecular basis of HPV associated throat and mouth cell (oropharyngeal) cancers in order to provide sufficient context to the novel nature of our study. At the end of the introduction, I introduce my “thesis” or aim for what this study hoped to accomplish. This is supplemented by the use of external studies, which are effectively weaved within sentences or used as references at the end of sentences, in order to establish the proper background information and justify how our research adds to the scholarship and development of oral cancer research. What follows is a materials and methods sections, which also employs the use of studies in trying to justify the use of certain methods over others. After the results section, is a discussion and conclusion section where I start to put those results into a broader context by addressing particular correlations and intuitive findings. This section also sets out to officially establish the importance of this research, and discusses future work that can be conducted to add to this field. Rhetorically speaking, this research paper employs language intended to appease both the expert and the layperson. As such, I believe that this paper, while technical in some of its aspects, is quite formulaic as it lays out and explains key ideas and important findings in some detail. Because of this, the language of the research paper is rather straightforward, or cut-and-dry, in manner. This format and style is reflected in my literature review as well. The introduction of the literature review also serves to establish contextual information and provide background material to establish the review’s importance among scholarship in sports psychology. Throughout the body of the review, I attempted to effectively weave the use of studies throughout sentences as well as use them as references as the ends of sentences. While the audience for a review is primarily meant to be an expert in the field of sports psychology, I also employ language in my writing that allow for a lay person’s understanding of such information. Thus, the linguistic nature of my review is rather straightforward in order to appeal to both audiences. Overall, my writing tends to be fairly straightforward and organized. It also employs language that intends to appeal to the expert as well as the layperson. I believe this style allows me to effectively stress the main points in my writing as well as clearly display the importance of my writing. Thank you for taking the time to review the contents of my midterm portfolio, and I look forward to seeing your input. Sincerely, Prashant Godishala

3

Midterm Portfolio Prashant Godishala

Literature Review & Associated Documents 2nd Draft: Review A Review of Mental Toughness & Age Maturation in Tennis Introduction Athletes competing in individual sports, such as tennis, deal with stressful and pressure filled situations that can often require snap-adjustments and snap-decisions. Strong stamina and endurance are some of the key physical components that characterize a tennis player who can handle such situations with more ease; however, tennis is as much a mental game as it is a physical game. Several studies have investigated and characterized psychological factors that impact performance in tennis matches across all age groups and skill levels. Through research conducted by Ommundsen in 2001, the idea of achievement goal orientation in athletics was divided into two categories: incremental theory of ability and fixed theory of ability (Ommundsen, 2001). This research showed that students with incremental theory of ability believed in their own personal competence rather than their competence relative to those around them, as well the fact that their athletic abilities can be improved upon through effort, while those with the fixed theory of ability believed in a talent ceiling that hinders their output of effort and mental toughness, thus leading to selfhandicapping tendencies (Ommundsen, 2001). Because of the difference in beliefs that these two theories present, they have a significantly different impact on an athlete’s performance. Such research can help coaches and physical/personal trainers improve athlete performance in high and low pressure situations through better knowledge of beliefs that prevent the need to self-handicap. This article examines the scholarship on mental toughness and maturation in tennis match performance in the field of sports psychology. Defining Mental Toughness Different nomenclature may be assigned to this idea; however, basic overarching principles and factors behind this concept remain relatively consistent within the field of sports psychology. Research by Cowden, Fuller, and Anshel (2014) uses the terms mental toughness and learned resourcefulness interchangeably to described positive and desirable psychological characteristics that a successful tennis player should ideally exhibit. Ommundsen’s research analyzes an alternative idea by summarizing the negatives through the idea of self-handicapping by means of fixed theory of ability (Ommundsen, 2001). While mental toughness is of primary importance in this review, self-handicapping must be explained as it is a direct externalization of poor mental toughness. Research by Ommundsen (2001) sought to describe and connect the primary contributing psychological factor to the idea of self-handicapping. In his research, he describes self-handicapping as anticipatory

4

Midterm Portfolio Prashant Godishala

strategy that exists as a protection against failure through low engagement in a particular task. (Ommundsen, 2001). Cowden, et al. (2014) uses the concept of learned resourcefulness to directly relate mental toughness to tennis athlete performance as the ability to employ proper problemsolving mechanisms and coping techniques in reducing negative external influences through learned and acquired skills. Ommundsen (2001) approaches mental toughness through psychological theory by explaining the incremental theory of ability as a personal belief in a developmental that allows an individual to grow and deal with difficult situations in a more manageable manner. Even Carol Dweck’s book, Mindset: the new psychology of success, seeks to push the idea of the “growth mindset” as one that promotes handling high pressure situations with ease. Poor mental toughness is also characterized slightly differently across scholarship. Ommundsen (2001) alludes to the idea of poor mental toughness through his explanation of self-handicapping by means of exuding a fixed theory of ability, which is defined as athletic talent being an innate quality. Dweck describes the “fixed mindset” which is similar in concept to the fixed theory of ability. Meanwhile, van Stralen (2015) and Cowden, et al. (2014) refers to the idea of performance anxiety as mental handicap that prevents the prevailing of psychological toughness. Mental Toughness and Self-Handicapping in Tennis Positive mental toughness seems to be exemplified by virtue of learned resourcefulness as important for preventative tool for self-handicapping tendencies. Ommundsen (2001) finds that high-perceived personal competence (self-confidence) counters the effects of the fixed theory of ability, which in turn prevents the need to selfhandicap (Ommundsen, 2001). Similarly, Cowden, et al. (2014) describes how exemplifying learned resourcefulness can work to improve an athlete’s mental toughness, which leads to improved match performance by a tennis athlete. Negative mental toughness in tennis, on the other hand, is a direct product of performance anxiety. This contributes towards a tendency to self-handicap. From a research trend perspective, Cowden, et al (2014) found that competitive trait anxiety has a positive correlation to strong mental toughness. Therefore, poor mental toughness is brought on by a person’s overwhelmed state due to a stressful athletic situation (Cowden, et al. 2014. p. 672). Work by van Stralen (2015) describes how self-handicapping helps “protect an individual from the adverse motivational consequences of failure feedback” (van Stralen 2015, p. 74). Specific to tennis, the idea of self-handicapping is externalized as “tanking.” This term describes the act of purposefully throwing the match, often due to poor performance leading up to the end of the match (van Stralen, 2015). This is brought on by a player running out of strategical options to win their tennis match, as their several previous strategies have been ineffective and unsuccessful in challenging their opponent. Therefore, the athlete “tanks” in order to justify their defeat in the end, an idea the mirrors the characteristics of self-handicapping (Cowden, et al. 2014). The research by Ommundsen (2001) describes how fixed theory of ability, or the idea that ability is talent driven, not developmental, leads to self-handicapping tendencies, which can also be a contributing factor towards “tanking” a match. Similarly, work by van Stralen (2015) takes the idea of self-handicapping and shows 5

Midterm Portfolio Prashant Godishala

how junior players using this maladaptive coping mechanism to “throw” or “tank” a match. Surprisingly, there are younger players on the professional circuit synonymous with “tanking” such as Nick Kyrgios and Bernard Tomic. In fact, especially world renowned players like Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, and Roger Federer were known to exhibit selfhandicapping tendencies towards the beginning of their professional careers. Conclusion The analysis of the mental toughness on an athlete’s performance in a competitive situation, such as a tennis match, is of great importance. If poor mental toughness has negative consequences on the performance of athletes causing self-handicapping tendencies and performance anxiety, coaches and parents alike can use such information to their advantage to foster not only the physical, but also the mental side of an athlete from a young age in order to put them in the mindset for success. This idea of the impact mental fortitude has on pressure situations, possesses implications much further beyond athletics. Strong mental toughness can be beneficial for those who struggle with test taking in school and college to individuals who struggle to manage deadlines and stress in professional situations.

Sources Cited Cowden, R. G., Anshel, M. H., & Fuller, D. K. (2014). Comparing athletes' and their coaches' perceptions of athletes' mental toughness among elite tennis players. Journal of Sport Behavior, 37(3), 221-235. Dweck, Carol S., (2008) Mindset: the new psychology of success New York. Ballantine Books. Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Self-handicapping strategies in physical education classes: The influence of implicit theories of the nature of ability and achievement goal orientations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2(3), 139-156. van Stralen, M. (2015). Fear of Failure and Self-Handicapping Behaviours in Tennis: Should All Junior Players Learn to “Tank”?. Journal of Medicine and Science in Tennis, 7275.

2nd Draft: Post-Outline Proposition: This review examines the scholarship on the ‘tennis psyche,’ specifically in match performance, in the field of sports psychology

6

Midterm Portfolio Prashant Godishala Audience: The main audience for this literature review includes academic readers in the field of psychology, especially those specific to sports psychology Goal: This article intends to synthesize scholarship that describes mental toughness as well as different mental/psychological factors and their characteristics as they pertain to performance in tennis matches Plan: The first part of the lit review aims to introduce the main ideas in the lit review. The following two sections define mental toughness and aim to connect the ideas of selfhandicapping. P1: This paragraph describes the importance of mentality in tennis Function: Since this is an introduction paragraph, it includes several premises. The usage of studies is merely an establishing of these premises and does not really serve to be evidence. Revision: I plan to make this paragraph more concise P2: This paragraph introduces key terms and establishes the two mindsets discussed throughout the literature review. Function: Since this is an introduction paragraph, it includes several premises. It also includes two reasons and corresponding examples Revision: I plan to make this paragraph more professional sounding P3: This paragraph provides context to the importance of the review and gives the preposition Function: Since this is an introduction paragraph, it includes premises. It also includes the proposition Revision: I plan to add more information stressing the importance of the review P4: Paragraph 4 discusses labels that individual studies place for the same ideas shared across scholarship in this field of study. Function: This paragraph has a few reasons and evidence Revision: I plan to make this paragraph more concise and avoid unnecessary information P5: This paragraph defines strong mental toughness using nomenclature from the studies Function: This paragraph contains one or two reasons and supporting evidence Revision: For revision, I plan to mainly revise this paragraph grammatically. Also, I will try to emphasize the importance of mental toughness P6: This paragraph defines poor mental toughness using nomenclature from the studies Function: This paragraph has a reason and supporting evidence Revision: For revision, I plan to mainly revise this paragraph grammatically. Also, I will try to emphasize the importance of knowing what poor mental toughness entails P7: The 7th paragraph connects the idea of strong mental toughness being externalized by learned resourcefulness. Function: This paragraph has a reason with supporting evidence Revision: I will try to make this paragraph have a more lit review tone to it.

7

Midterm Portfolio Prashant Godishala P8: The 8th paragraph connects the idea of poor mental toughness being externalized of selfhandicapping Function: This paragraph has a reason and supporting evidence Revision: The next revision will aim to provide more example to the connection between the two ideas P9: This paragraph discusses tennis specific self-handicapping called “tanking” Function: This paragraph has one reason and supporting evidence Revision: I will try to transition this paragraph better in to the next section, which will be about age maturation in tennis, and emphasize the importance of understanding the concept of tanking.

1st Draft: Review A Review of Mental Toughness & Age Maturation in Tennis Introduction Athletes competing in individual sports, such as tennis, deal with stressful and scary situations that can often require snap-adjustments and snap-decisions (van Stralen, 2015). While strong stamina and high endurance are just some of the key physical components that characterize a tennis player who are able to deal with such situat...