Role Models

I have been especially impressed with both Laura and Lauren's blogs this semester.  They are very different yet they both have a few elements that are similar and contribute to the quality of the blogs.   Both writers do a very good job at incorporating outside ideas and making relevant connections to the world.  Although the writers are interested in different areas, they incorporate their interests and passions into their writing while still following the prompt.  As well as including outside ideas, both blogs are very well written and clearly address the prompts.

Laura's blog often includes analysis of current events, philosophy papers, and other student's blogs, giving her blog another dimension.  This awareness probably stems from her political science and sociology background and it is a nice change in perspective from all the movement science majors.

Lauren's blog is very intriguing because she often incorporates engaging images that she links to her topic of discussion.  She makes very strong connections between these ideas in ways that I would not think of making.  I think her interest in architecture and art makes her perspective especially interesting.

These blogs encourage me to take a more out of the box approach to blogging.  Whenever I blog, I generally only rely on my own thoughts and analysis of the reading or the topic of discussion.  I rarely incorporate outside sources or images because I just don't think about it.  In the second half of the semester, I am going to try to approach blogs from a different angle e instead of writing them like English papers.   I think that I feel somewhat confined by the prompts and write to answer the questions posed instead of making this blog more of my own.  I like the idea of the freedom of blogging but I just haven't utilized it to its full potential yet.

My challenge for the rest of the semester is to expand my blog to incorporate other outside references and develop a unique blogging voice that is intriguing and captivating.

But this is a task that begins in March. In the meantime, I have spring break to enjoy (:

Kaitlyn

More complex than it seems

  

            It is the nature of scientists to desire to quantify and explain any element of the natural world.  This drive for objective explanations and accurate models drives the scientific community and has yielded a great deal of new information.  There have been many scientific advances in medicine and technology, however some elements of society have proven to be more difficult to study and explain.  One example of this is understanding the writing process.  Since we do not know enough neuroscience to be able to completely explain all the elements of the writing process, cognitive psychologists have developed models based on thoughts and behavior to attempt to objectify it. 

            One of these models is explained in the essay “Cognitive Process Theory of Writing” by Flower and Hayes.  Flower and Hayes argue that stage models of writing are not necessarily accurate because writing does not always follow the sequential order of pre-writing, writing, and revising and these stages may take nontraditional forms.  They prefer to explain the writing process as “a set of distinctive thinking processes which writers orchestrate or organize during the act of composing.”  However, they go on to explain the extensive cognitive process theory of writing which includes several elements. The task environment which describes the writer’s environment, including the rhetorical problem and the written text. The other’s elements are the writer’s long-term memory, and the writing processes that include planning, translating, and reviewing, Each of these components contain several contributing elements.  For example, the planning stage includes generating ideas, organizing and goal setting. The overarching claim is that there is no correct order and these elements may happen sequentially, simultaneously, or may even be embedded in each other. 

I thought it was interesting that the model attempted to quantify and explain every element of the entire writing process.  I found it ironic that they argued against the stage model but instead present their own theory that is essentially, a complex and glorified stage model.  As I read it, I did not see how it would benefit my writing because it was just too in depth to be able to identify with each stage as during writing.

The most stimulating idea that I took from this model was the inherent complexity of the writing process.  The quantity and depth of information that must be integrated in the brain to achieve a seemingly simple task of writing is truly amazing.  Although we may struggle with writing, we often take for granted how much our mind is subconsciously working and planning.  This complexity is reflected in the difficulty to develop an accurate and accepted model or understanding of this “simple” process that is integral to our society. 

I don’t necessarily support or disagree with their proposed model but I don’t think it is particularly useful to writers.  Although I think it is important to think about the methods behind writing, I think that the degree of analysis and extensive labeling in this theory is a bit overkill.  The writing process is so personal and varies with individual that trying to quantify it can be compared to trying to quantify imagination. I realize that different people are curious and passionate about this process and are driven to break it down and truly understand it.  However, I kind of like the mystique of the writing process and the lack of rules.  I am not interested in understanding the details of how people write, I am much more curious about the function of writing in society and how it changes based on the writer and the situation.

But I am also not a cognitive psychologist.  And nor do I want to be.

And I will leave it at that.

Kaitlyn

Writer's Blindness

I believe all writers are plagued with a unique blindness when they read their own writing.  They read the words that they carefully choose and sentences that they delicately contrived with satisfaction but fail to identify blatant issues that are still present in their masterpiece.  This phenomenon is nearly inevitable because writers know what they want to say so their brains' fill in the holes in logic or structure in their own writing.  These undetected flaws are often lapses in argument and not grammar or sentence structure.

I can easily identify these lapses in argument in other writers' work but yet I fall victim to the same problems.  When I read reviews on my paper, I am often frustrated because I don't see how the readers didn't understand what I thought were the obvious elements of my argument.  However, when I go back to my writing, I can see exactly where their confusion stems from.   Writing clear and strong arguments is a crucial element of writing that I should improve on.

Strong skills in argumentation can be useful in any field, including the scientific or medical fields.  Writing grants for research funding utilizes strong argumentation.  Writing scientific articles and reviewing articles depends on skills that are enhanced by strong skills in argumentation.  Overall, argumentation is more than a style of writing, it is a way of thinking.  It is thinking that identifies trends and evidence and avoids making claims that cannot be supported. From this perspective, argumentation is the factor that hones critical thinking and is utilized in countless contexts.

It's about the questions, not the details of the answers...

Writing to inquire is both intriguing as well as daunting.  I enjoyed being able to write about my own experiences and thoughts in a unique context.  I liked writing about ideas and questions that I wonder about but never explicitly express.

However, I continue to be a bit overwhelmed with this task of writing to inquire.  I am struggling to integrate so many ideas and sources into a coherent and meaningful whole.  It helped that my interview with Dr. Sonnega brought up some ideas that I have been thinking about as well.  However, I am finding it very difficult to try and capture these complex and vague concepts and translate them into language.

Writing to inquire is definitely a new challenge as I have never attempted, or even considered this type of writing.  This is likely part of the challenge because I have nothing to compare to or refer back to.  I'm not sure if I will have to use this type of writing in my other courses or career just due to the abstract nature of the writing.  Scientific courses and careers are usually very objective and writing is meant to bring about discussion through results but not necessarily thoughts.  However, the scientific process is a process of inquiry, it is just approached in a different way.  Maybe writing to inquire would be beneficial to use in scientific contexts as a way to stimulate ideas and discussion.  Maybe writing to inquire has the potential to bridge the gap between the scientific realm and the community.

Ok hold on with me for a minute as I go out on a limb.  This may be a stretch as I try to link everything back to this theme of a more open communication from the scientific community, but I think it is worth thinking about.   What if normal citizens wrote inquiries and shared them with the scientific community.  Not superficial questions that could be answered with a Wikipedia search, but complex or insightful questions that they think should have an answer.  Some of these inquiries would make it to the scientists in the appropriate field and they could write responses if they had an answer and if they didn't, it would give them bit of perspective into a relevant issue.  This discourse could be published somewhere and available to scientists and citizens alike.

There are obviously flaws and problems with this proposal but it would be an interesting experiment.  Sometimes all it takes is an outside perspective to change the momentum of thinking about a problem.  However, this would only work if people wrote thoughtful inquiries that were not politically motivated but instead curiously or practically motivated.

Ok that is enough stretching.  I admit that this would probably be not well received but it is an interesting concept.  But the beautiful thing about inquiry is it is about the questions, and not necessarily the details of the answers.

Kaitlyn

Interview Reflection

            Today I interviewed Dr. Amanda Sonnega Ph.D. who I introduced in a previous blog. I decided to interview her because I wanted to follow up on the concept of a gap in the accessibility of science writing and segway into my next paper on how writing should be taught at the university.  I thought she would have an interesting perspective on these concepts from her own writing background and experience teaching scientific writing to undergraduates.  I was nervous before the interview because I wasn’t sure how she would receive my questions.  I was most curious and apprehensive about how she would respond to my idea of this gap in science accessibility. 

            The interview went very well, she was enthusiastic and had some very insightful input.   I asked her about her experiences teaching scientific writing, her own writing experiences, and how important it is to broaden the audience of scientific writing and how we should approach it. We ended up talking a lot about how flaws in the education system and scientific community limit the scientific literacy of the general population.   She proposed that there should be a career focused on linking the scientific community and general public.  This career would require extensive training in a specific field and would have a mission of making the science being done understandable and demonstrating the relevance to the general public.  This proposed “science translator,” is in essence the ultimate public intellectual. 

            We also discussed how the responsibility of translating and sharing this information may reside with the scientists and researchers.  Scientists’ jobs include researching, writing articles, teaching, and service.  Dr. Sonnega explained that the service component is often fulfilled by sitting on boards, but outreach efforts should be stressed instead.  She had the unique position of being a science writer for the Michigan Retirement Research Center where she wrote briefs describing the research and relevance to policy makers.  Although this may be considered more public policy than scientific writing, this concept of translating to a broader audience is the same.

            She made me think about a lot of important issues in the fields of public policy and science and I hope that I made her ponder some possibilities as well.  I’m excited to reflect on some of these ideas in my paper but I’m somewhat worried that I am not approaching the prompt in the right way.  I focused much less on her idea of argumentation and writing process and more on big picture issues regarding writing in the field. 

            Whether I approached this correctly or not, this has made me think a lot about writing, the field of movement science, and where I am going to fit in all of it.  Dr. Sonnega also touched on how movement science is such a cross-disciplinary study that people have a hard time classifying it like they want to.  It is so broad that it is important to find you’re a unique angle.  But ultimately this is the key in any field, to find or develop your own niche and occupy it.  

Writing Woes

Last semester I had two unique writing experiences that shook the foundations of what I thought I knew.  This challenge ironically came in Introductory Biology Lab.  Although the majority of the class was spent in lab, a large portion of the grade was based on two papers on topics relevant to the experiments performed.  I had previously been successful in writing assignments in college and was confident in my ability to write well.  The assignment called for summarizing and analyzing a scientific journal article on plasmid cloning.  Although I was not familiar with the topic, I worked through the article until I understood the methods and concepts.  I then tried to simplify what I found and satisfy the additional criteria in the prompt using a writing style I was comfortable with.  I was pleased and confident with my final product, especially after receiving good feedback from the GSI on my draft and doing the minor revisions she had suggested.  However, when the papers came back I was appalled at the grade I received.  The GSI had ripped it to shreds and shot down every defense I tried to make.  I was marked down the most on writing that wasn't concise and the sentence structures that were not clear.

 The next paper was a report on an experiment regarding plant competition we had done in lab. It involved interpreting a large amount of messy data and drawing conclusions from it. Since my confidence in my writing was demolished after the first paper, I struggled to even get a draft of the second assignment.  I felt overwhelmed by the vast amount of information to analyze and the level of perfection that the writing was going to be held to.  Once I finally worked through a first draft, I struggled with the strict page limit we were held to.  However, this required me to address my issue of conciseness when spending an immense amount of time revising.  I finally eliminated any nonessential wording even though it violated my perception of good writing.  I ended up receiving a much higher score although not a score reflective of the time I spent mulling over the assignment.

I believe these writing assignments definitely tarred my impression of the class.  I thought the assignments were too vague and then graded to a ridiculous level of perfection for an introductory biology course.  I learned about writing in the specific style that was expected in the class and improved my ability to write concisely.  However, I have never struggled so much on a writing assignment as I did with the second paper.  Although I spent a great deal of time on it, I don't feel like my writing improved much as a result.  I became extremely familiar with the specific experiment and article we analyzed, but I didn't feel like this reflected learning.  I think the reason that I felt that I didn't learn a lot from this writing experience was the lack of constructive feedback.  The first feedback on my draft was positive but then the final was extremely negative.  I felt that this was not conducive to learning or fair.  The second paper I received vague feedback in office hours that did not translate to what I needed to improve my writing.

Although I have been arguing that my learning was compromised by lack of sufficient feedback from the instructor, another theory of learning states self-provided feedback in writing as a characteristic of learning.  Writing does allow the writer a unique chance at self-feedback through reading and revising their work.  However, writers are plagued with a selective blindness when reading their own writing.  Awkward phrases, bad sentence structure, and flaws of many types are glossed over because the writer knows what he is trying to communicate.  This blindness is the danger of self-feedback and reflects the benefit of constructive feedback from instructors and peers.  

This is my Bio 173 rant.  I hope to learn from it what I can but not dwell on what is done.

Kaitlyn

Who to interview?

            I have two professors that could be interesting interview candidates on writing in science. They are both associated with the field of movement science, but have very different perspectives in the field. 

The first professor I have in mind is Professor Peter Bodary, Ph.D.   He teaches exercise physiology and statistics in the School of Kinesiology at the University of Michigan and is head of the Vascular Biology Lab.   He has done extensive research on thrombosis, adipose tissue, insulin resistance, and vascular disease in mice.  He is also working on translational research to clinical populations.  Dr. Bodary has contributed to 28 published articles in accredited journals such as the British Journal of Sports Medicine and the Journal of Applied Physiology among others. His profile and CV can be found at the School of Kinesiology website. 

Interviewing Dr. Bodary would give me an interesting perspective on writing in a scientific field due to the number of publications he has been involved with.  Since he is listed as the first investigator in many of the articles, he was likely integral in the writing process.  Dr. Bodary also has set up a website for his Vascular Biology Lab.  This site includes an overview of his research and summarizes his main projects as well as including links to his publications.  I found this intriguing because it fits with the argument of my last paper, that science writing should be accessible to a broader audience.  It would be interesting to ask him why he decided to create this kind of website and what he considered when summarizing his research in simpler language. 

 The other professor I am considering interviewing is Amanda Sonnega Ph.D.  She earned a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University in Public Health Psychology and currently teaches scientific writing in the School of Kinesiology at the University of Michigan.  She is especially interested in social and psychological factors that influence health and well-being and has a publication on social security research at the Michigan Retirement Research Center.  She is also a reviewer of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.  Dr. Sonnega's profile and CV can also be found at the Kinesiology website.  

Interviewing Professor Sonnega would give me an interesting perspective on writing in the sciences since she teaches an undergraduate class on scientific writing.  I would ask her about how she approaches introducing young college students to this new discourse and what she thinks the biggest challenges are.  She would also have an interesting angle on publication since she is a reviewer for a scientific journal.  

Both of these professors have such different and intriguing perspectives on scientific writing that is going to be very difficult to choose who to interview.  I have had both of them as professors and am very comfortable with each of them.  I am going to begin formulating interview questions and this may help me with my decision.  

"Trespass vision"- a personal offense

Trespass- to commit an offense against.  Vision- the ability to see or the ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom.  These two ideas are so different that their combination into a single entity is seemingly unnatural and creates almost a state of unease upon reading.  Yet the term "trespass vision" was coined by Tillie Olsen and has been powerfully used in rhetoric ever since.  

Royster uses the term in her speech "When the first thing you hear is not your own" to illustrate her frustration with others that speak with an authority that they don't have.  I think of vision as having passionate and innovative ideas backed with logic.  Vision needs to be cultivated, not necessarily by books and facts, but by thoughts and experiences.  Through this shaping, it becomes extremely personal.  This vision guides the journey to authority and understanding, legitimate and honest power. Trespassing is an offense, but has a stronger connotation.  Trespassing is a violation, not of the law in this context, but more personal. 

I think that "trespass vision" is so enraging to Royster because she perceives it as such a personal offense.  To listen to someone who assumes that they know and understand a perspective in which they have no background or a superficial background can be intolerable, especially if you understand the truth they are trying to fake.  

As I break this concept of "trespass vision" down further, I can see how it relates to plagiarism.  Plagiarism is the ultimate "trespass vision" because it entails assuming an authority that the writer has not earned. It is skipping the journey and benefiting from the end product.  However, when there is not time to take the journey, this is an enticing option.  This is where problems in interdisciplinary writing come into play.  Due to the sheer amount of time and effort it would take to learn and understand the discourse of another discipline, students and writers are more likely to slip into habits of plagiarism.  

Unfortunately, time is often a limiting factor in learning and in life.  It is an inevitable element of the journey. Plagiarism appears to provide a shortcut to the destination, but the land is plastered with keep out signs.  Thus presents one of the great academic moral dilemmas, the choice to trespass and trod upon the visions of those who have completed the process or conquer the journey set before you.