Month: October 2018

 

Introduction – I did not change much in my introduction. I added two sentences towards the end of it because my ideas didn’t flow very well. I feel as though the sentence i added made my introduction easier to understand.

Evidence and Explanations – My first draft was very short and mainly included Nair and Nair. I knew moving forward into my final draft I would need to involve Gee and Haas, thats exactly what I did. I used Gee’s building tasks identities, connections and relationships. I used Haas study of Eliza to show rhetorical development.

Reorganization – I did not move much around, there were quotes that I went back and introduced better.

New Paragraphs – Most of my paper ended up being new because of the fact that my first draft was so short. I added a few more body paragraphs and and conclusion to wrap up all of my ideas. once I got a grasp on my ideas and was able to map out a plan I felt it was easier to finish the paper. Getting started was the worst part for me.

1. My first draft was very short therefore I have not yet divulged Gee in any depth. However, I have gotten feedback from my peers and now have a better understanding of how i can incorporate Gee into my paper. I plan on writing about his “identities” and “relationship” building tasks and how the two work together in Science Discourse.
2. My first body paragraph talks mainly about the role of IMRAD. like i said in question 1, I now have a better understanding of what it is I need to do and therefore incorporate solid pieces of language into my new paragraphs that I hope will work well.
3. My paragraph about the role of IMRAD is very informative, however, I feel as though I can add more “i say” sentences in there to help strengthen it overall.
4. Although my first draft was short, by doing these exercises and the peer review in class and on my own I feel as though I’ve been able to help better my understanding of science discourse. By incorporating Haas and Gee as well the role of IMRAD I basically give a guiding of how it is to enter science Discourse. The route that must be taken to fully achieve a science discourse might take some time but with careful attention to detail it most certainly can be done.

Original

Arguably one of the more important parts of IMRAD is the introduction. This is the setup for the entire research paper. “It tells why the reader should find the paper interesting, explains why the author carried out the research, and gives the background the reader needs to understand and judge the paper” (Nair and Nair 18). If one can not express a clear problem or issue and why that problem is of any significance then the reader would have no reason to continue. The materials and methods section of the paper should state clearly what has been done and how it was carried out. “The simplest way to organize this section is chronologically; include all necessary information, but avoid unnecessary details that the readers are supposed (ought) to know” (Nair and Nair 18). Sure there is some importance in describing the way something was done but that isn’t usually what the readers are after. Generally readers are looking for information that they do not already have, the new facts. This leaves the methods portion of the paper as the least read. Getting into what the readers are actually looking for is the results portion of the paper. “This section presents the new knowledge; therefore, it is the core of the paper” (Nair and Nair 20). Although this is the core of the paper, both the introduction and the methods portion are necessary to setup how the author arrived at the information presented in this section. The information presented in this section is of the most importance and value, it is the whole reason the the reader is reading in the first place. After displaying the information the scientist has found he or she will then move on to the discussion part of their paper. This portion is said to be the most difficult to write by scientists because it ties everything that has previously been explained together. “The authors’ skill in interpreting the results in the light of known facts and using the results as evidence for innovative explanations of the observed behavior should push the frontiers of knowledge and arouse the reader’s’ enthusiasm” (Nair and Nair 21). P.K.R and V.D Nair suggest the difficulty of writing this section and how its impossible to describe how to do it.

Revised

Arguably one of the more important parts of IMRAD is the introduction. This is the setup for the entire research paper. “It tells why the reader should find the paper interesting, explains why the author carried out the research, and gives the background the reader needs to understand and judge the paper” (Nair and Nair 18). If one can not express a clear problem or issue and why that problem is of any significance then the reader would have no reason to continue. The materials and methods section of the paper should state clearly what has been done and how it was carried out. “The simplest way to organize this section is chronologically; include all necessary information, but avoid unnecessary details that the readers are supposed (ought) to know” (Nair and Nair 18). Sure there is some importance in describing the way something was done but that isn’t usually what the readers are after. Generally readers are looking for information that they do not already have, the new facts. This leaves the methods portion of the paper as the least read. Getting into what the readers are actually looking for is the results portion of the paper. “This section presents the new knowledge; therefore, it is the core of the paper” (Nair and Nair 20). Although this is the core of the paper, both the introduction and the methods portion are necessary to setup how the author arrived at the information presented in this section. The information presented in this section is of the most importance and value, it is the whole reason the the reader is reading in the first place. After displaying the information the scientist has found he or she will then move on to the discussion part of their paper. This portion is said to be the most difficult to write by scientists because it ties everything that has previously been explained together. “The authors’ skill in interpreting the results in the light of known facts and using the results as evidence for innovative explanations of the observed behavior should push the frontiers of knowledge and arouse the reader’s’ enthusiasm” (Nair and Nair 21). P.K.R and V.D Nair suggest the difficulty of writing this section and how its impossible to describe how to do it.

 

 

Significance

“Experts within scientific domains, then, draw upon rich representations of discourse as a social and rhetorical act, what geisler has called socially configured mental models, as they create and interpret texts and as they judge the validity and usefulness of the information within them” (Haas, 45).

Scientists use language to determine whether works of others are valid or significant.

Practices

“Each of these readers moved beyond an ‘autonomous’ text and tried to account for a number of situational or rhetorical elements-author, authorial intent, reader identity, and historical, cultural, and situational context-to ‘frame’ or support the discourse” (Haas 49).

Readers are practices using the rhetorical frame method of reading, allowing them to understand more than the simple facts that are given in a text.

Identities

“An extended 4-year examination of one student as she progresses during college, focusing primarily on how the student’s views of, and interactions with, disciplinary text changed through her postsecondary education” (Haas 46).

Through Eliza’s four years at college her identity changed in the sense that she had a better understanding of text and viewed text in a more complex intelligent manner.

 

1. Haas explains in the opening of her text “At the college level, to become literate is in many ways to learn the patterns of knowing about, and behaving toward, texts within a disciplinary field” (43). She breaks down the way college students learn throughout their four years and the difference between freshman and seniors. “beginning college students approach academic tasks as if they believe that texts are autonomous and context free” (Haas 46).
2. Haas discusses a myth that involves the understanding of a text once it has been read. Autonomous texts are independent meaning there is no outside involvement.  “the belief in autonomous texts views written academic texts as discrete, highly explicit, even “timeless” entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture” (Haas 45).  Haas believes this to be a myth, and quite honestly i am very confused by the whole thing.
3. Haas’ study of Eliza helps us understand how a college students understanding of a text progresses during their studies of a major. Haas explains that early college students are more likely to look at texts and only retain initial factual information and they don’t anywise further. he goes on to say how students would benefit from a more rhetorical model. using Eliza as an example he states ” Although Eliza may have tacitly subscribed to the doctrine of autonomous texts early in her college career, by the time she left college she had come to a greater awareness of the rhetorical, contingent nature of both the activities and discourses she participated in within her chosen field, biology” (Haas 46).
4. A rhetorical frame is a “model or representation of discourse situations” (Haas 47). This includes three elements “participants, their relationships and motives, and several layers of context”(Haas 48). According to Haas a rhetorical frame should help a reading understand the underlying text.

ENG110I

Haas suggest that students need some sort of metaknowledge in regards to science before they learn in to a higher degree. This is similar to Gee’s use of Metaknowledge on Discourse.

Haas explains that first year students don’t analyze text further than the facts that they are given.

According to Haas, scientists believe that students would get more out of a text if they could analyze it further than just taking the facts that they are initially given.

Haas uses the term Discourse similarly to Gee. He explains that scientists adjust the way they explain their studies based on the audiences Discourse.

 

ENG110I