The combination of both narrative medicine classes definitely revolutionized my writing and my perspective on medicine. When I look back on where I started and how far I’ve come, it gives me a great sense of pride to know that I managed to learn so much about not only myself but about other people as well. One of the greatest outcomes from this class was the way we always managed to find a connection to every reading piece that was given. No matter how complex or far-fetched the piece seemed, there was always a way to build a bridge between the two. However, when I first started the class I had a really hard time making connections and properly analyzing the texts. When it came to writing papers and discussion posts, I could never really “hit the nail right on the head.” I feel like I would always come really close to making my point but somehow I would always miss the mark. I realized that it had a lot to do with my ability to practice systematic application of citations. During the middle of the semester, we all had student-professor evaluations and one of the things that professor De La Cruz told me was that I would quote certain things but never really explain or connect them back to what I was talking about. After his feedback, I took it upon myself to look back at every discussion post I’d done and try to find all of the times I included a quote but never really used it to the best of my ability. I realized that I did what he described many times. I think the reason I included them was because I thought they would be the smart thing to include instead of being the right thing to include.

  I think that the point where I really noticed a difference in my writing was when I compared my metaphor paper to my critical lens paper. While I feel like my metaphor paper stayed true to what the prompt was asking, I didn’t explain my point as thoroughly as possible. The quotes that I used didn’t really support my argument, they just seemed like they were being used as filler. On the other hand, in my critical lens paper, I made sure to use quotes that went hand in hand with every point I was trying to address from my target text. I made an outline of what points from my target text needed to be addressed and then re-read Constructing Normalcy with a newfound tunnel vision. I also made sure that the quotes I was choosing really complimented the point I was trying to get across. When I got my feedback from professor Ryder, I was pleasantly surprised. She told me I did a good job at making the paper a conversation between the two texts and even asked if she could send it to my peers so they could use it as an example. Overall, I think that my experience with constructive criticism helped me because I actually took the steps necessary to improve my writing. Had it not been for this trial and error stage, I wouldn’t have changed my writing skills and got it to its full potential.

  Another aspect of the class that I feel like both sections helped me improve on was public speaking. Before college, I never really had to do presentations and if I did it was only to one or two people. However, in the narrative medicine portion, we were required to do a presentation with a partner in front of the entire class. Initially, I was extremely nervous because the idea of speaking in front of everyone made me feel petrified. But the experience turned out to be a really positive one because it forced me to have to get comfortable with my peers and develop good relationships with them. I found that it was useful to apply the skills that I was taught previously to get my message across. When It came to presenting about “Welcome to Cancerland” by Barbara Eisenreich and “The Cancer Journals” by Audre Lorde, I made sure to find a way to personally connect to the pieces and also use what I’d learned about weeding out what’s truly important to say. I think that ultimately, I improved my skills of analytical thinking in both speaking and writing and found a way to tie them together well. Another benefit of the presentations was the act of learning how to listen. I think that my class definitely created a positive group dynamic because both professors did a great job at making our classroom environment open to mistakes. Presenting in front of everyone was such a humbling experience because it wasn’t about being perfect, it was more about using everything you’d learned to deliver the best presentation possible. We really mastered the empathetic act of listening to others’ stories and using that to engender values of medical professionalism and social responsibility.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.