A Cover Letter: “Finito”

Introduction: What You Should Expect

The collection of works located under the Pages tab, each titled “Task X,” represents a journey to find the connections between communication and learning in an online game environment. There are four selections, and each of which have individual purposes. Task 1 is the proposal, the beginning; while Task 4 is the final product, the conglomerate finality of the pages. In writing them, I believe I have been successful in both meeting the course requirements and fulfilling the Course Outcomes of ENC 1102.

The Outcomes: Fulfillment

Outcome 1

For Outcome 1–which entails complex textual analysis and synthesis–the course essay that best fulfills it is Task 3, the Annotated Bibliography. This is because the task requires a short summary of the secondary sources and a brief synthesis to the other secondary sources, which ultimately meets the base requirements for the Outcome. This, however, is not the only way to fulfill that outcome. For instance, the introduction in Task 4 utilizes those secondary sources in the CARS Model outlined by John Swales: throughout that introduction I adapted my secondary sources’ relevant portions such as James Gee’s quote on the difference between “problem games,” or games that have one singular problem-solving purpose, and “world games,” or games that have a wide variety of problems and ways to solve them. This is a specific fulfillment of the first characteristic of Outcome 1, defined on the Course Outcome handout.

Outcome 2

Tasks 1, 2 and 3 fulfill the requirements laid out by Outcome 2 in that they are the embodiment of recursive inquiry-based writing and research. To clarify, Task 1 was the development of initial claims and the propositions to perform research to address those claims, or the CARS model; Task 2 required primary research–interviews, observations, textual analyses and surveys–to be performed, or the Methods and Results; and Task 3 is again the Annotated Bibliography, or the collection of analyses and syntheses of relevant secondary sources.

Outcome 3

In Outcome 3 the objective was to interpret research findings and create our arguments that answer our claims. This is apparent in Tasks 2 and 4, especially in the Results sections for both. These sections are meant for analyzing the data collected and the application of that data to the research. For example. my Results included interviews, and for each interviewee’s answers I applied their responses to my research, analyzing what my interviewees answers meant and using them in tandem with my claims.

Outcome 4

Outcome 4 required us to rethink the way we see writing when doing research. The fulfillment of this comes from all of the Revisions and Initial/ Final Reflections we have done on the major tasks. The most work I have done in either regard are the revisions I have done on the CARS model and the Discussion, which I currently use in the Task 4 final, as these employ massive amounts of editing and contextual revision. When I went through revising each paper, and sometimes completely rewriting certain portions of them, I had to incorporate as much of what I learned in the course as possible while still maintaining the focus of each paper. This entire outcome lends itself to my general writing skills in that it instills the concept of growth and development as a writer in life.


In summary, I believe my development as a writer has grown significantly. The substantial feedback from my peers and my professor have provided me with insight as to how great research papers are written. There is a specific progression I find between Tasks 1 and 4: in Task 1 there is not much development, no solid foundation as to what I wanted to do. In all honesty, I was really doubting whether or not I’d be able to stick to communications in Clash of Clans in January–but I was told to keep at it and that it would soon become a much better topic. By Task 2 I had already been invested in it and there was no real opportunity to turn it around at that point, so I decided to just keep trying to get as much out of it as I could. Task 3 was rough in the introduction, but when I had revised that section to be later used in Task 4 I had felt a great sensation of accomplishment. My peers and professor lauded my leap from an underdeveloped topic to a fully-fledged arguable research gold mine. I personally feel that Task 4 is the pinnacle of my research in ENC 1102, and it definitely has superiority over Task 1.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s