Block 1 Lecture 1 Reflection: Overview, Protocol Format, and Research Question Development (17 July)

Block 1 Lecture 1 Reflection: Overview, Protocol Format, and Research Question Development (17 July)
(Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle, 1988)
1. Description
The first day of Block 1 introduced the module overview, protocol format, and the difference between a study protocol and a grant proposal. We also explored how to formulate a research question, develop a hypothesis, and define specific aims, followed by valuable guidance from Marli McAllister on writing a literature review. During the lunch break, I met with my supervisor, Professor Hendricks, and other students to discuss our research topics and share ideas. It was such a warm and motivating experience .I felt truly welcomed and inspired, as though I was stepping into the “big leagues” of academic research for the first time.
2. Feelings
At the beginning of the session of block 1 , I felt both excited and nervous. I was eager to start shaping my research formally but intimidated by the academic rigour expected. Realising that I was one step closer to completing my qualification made me proud yet anxious about meeting expectations. Despite this, I was motivated because I had already formulated my topic, which felt meaningful and aligned with my interests.
3. Evaluation
This lecture helped me clarify the difference between a research proposal and a grant proposal, something I previously found confusing. Understanding the purpose and structure of a research protocol made the process more manageable. The lecturers explanations and examples made me realise that a well-structured protocol is not just a formality but a blueprint for ethical and systematic research. I also appreciated the reflective component, which encouraged me to connect concepts to my own study. However, I recognised the need to improve my academic writing, especially structuring aims and aligning them with a feasible hypothesis.
4. Analysis
The session strengthened my appreciation for how a well formulated research question forms the backbone of the entire study design. Through lecture guidance realised i needed to be specific, measurable, and aligned with objectives. This understanding later influenced how I restructured Assignment 1 and refined my hypothesis. The literature review lecture session reinforced the importance of evidence-based justification and critical appraisal to identify knowledge gaps.
5. Conclusion
I learned that confidence and clarity come from being prepared and open to learning. This lecture showed me how important it is to ask for feedback and stay engaged with my supervisor. It helped me move from feeling unsure to feeling confident in my ability to plan and conduct ethical, well-structured research. My main learning outcome was understanding how preparation and guidance make the research process more focused and manageable. The learning materials and discussions directly improved my proposal structure. The lecture could be enhanced by including short group activities where students formulate and critique research questions together. The only challenge I might face is maintaining this same level of precision when working on more complex studies in the future. However, the questioning and analytical approach I’ve learned is something I can carry beyond research and it will also help me think critically and find solutions in my occupational health practice and quality-improvement projects at the clinic.

6. Action Plan
Going forward I plan to:
• Continue refining my research question using the PICO framework.
• Schedule regular check-ins with my supervisor.
• Strengthen my literature-review skills through critical reading and referencing.
• Maintain reflective journaling after each lecture.