Overview
Reflection papers are central to our ungrading model. This is when you connect your writing to your growth, document how you have engaged with feedback, and prepare for the next steps. These reflections are not simply journals - they are meant to sharpen your awareness of your movement through this course, your evolving voice as a writer, and your ability to use feedback critically.
What feedback have you received so far (from me, peers, or AI), and how was that feedback helpful?
Give specific examples of using feedback in the revision process, or if you haven't gotten there, how do you anticipate making changes?
How have you used (or avoided using) AI tools in your process? What else do you want to learn?
Where do you still see the most room for improvement in your writing process and overall learning?
Have your interest shifted, or are you still focused on what you proposed?
Anything else to add?
This is the teacher feedback:
What is working: You chose a focused and important issue, and the connection between chronic stress and hypertension is explained in a way that feels both biological and public-health oriented. The strongest parts are where you move beyond individual stress and show how race, income, work conditions, neighborhood safety, food access, and healthcare access shape cardiovascular risk. Your use of the socio-ecological model is also effective because it helps the reader understand hypertension as more than a matter of personal responsibility.
What can be improved: First, fix your formatting and add your name/coverpage/etc. The biggest issue is evidence depth. You rely heavily on two sources, and for a literature review, you need a wider body of research to synthesize—especially studies on chronic stress, hypertension disparities, racism/allostatic load, occupational stress, and community-level stressors. The writing also needs sentence-level cleanup in several places where grammar or phrasing interrupts the flow, especially in the introduction. Finally, some claims are strong, but they need clearer citation support and more careful wording so the paper feels evidence-led rather than explanatory only.
Creative suggestion: One powerful through-line would be: chronic stress is not just something people “feel”; it is something unequal systems can biologically embed in the body. If you build the review around that idea and add a few more high-quality sources, this could become a very strong foundation for your later Innovations and Policy section.