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
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
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.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
"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.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A niche in a new community
The desire to fit in is almost an innate trait in human nature. It is the need to find a niche that is your own yet integrated within the larger community. It starts in childhood, is exaggerated in the teenage years, and becomes nearly life-consuming in the transition to college. When first starting college, students are immersed in a different culture, an academic world. The rules are not the same as high school and the sooner this is discovered, the better. This brings the concept of adapting to a new community,yet again finding your place. This time the roles and the identities may not be as clearly defined or simple as in high school. The rules are no longer clear-cut, and this is not just referring to curfew. Ideas, concepts, and peers become broader and often more abstract. This phenomenon be enlightening, frightening, or often a little of both.
Bartholomae captures this process of adapting to a new community in his writing "Inventing the University." He outlines the struggles that first-year writers face as they attempt to fit the academic discourse when writing. Since they may not feel ready to be included in this community and lack the experience they feel is necessary to fit in, students will alter their writing to fit what they feel is appropriate for the context in which they are writing. It is a process of determining how to use different voices for different roles and allow each to develop. This may require elimination of the "clean" shallow writing which may be safe but does not fit the ultimate discourse of academia.
He also discusses the struggle of writers to create truly original material. When so much has already been said, the "off-stage" voices of previous writing and text mars the originality of most writing. I think that this is why science fields are so intriguing to me. After you spend time learning to do science and think science by studying what has already been done, lies an open frontier. New discoveries retain originality and can be reported without overtones of other voices. This opportunity for invention is why I am pursuing science.
However, Bartholomae's idea that students must engage in "artificial work" before truly being integrated into the academic community holds for science as well. Students must be subject to hours of "knowledge telling" before reaching the next level. I wish this process could somewhat be altered to focus toward making larger connections between concepts. Breaking through the glass ceiling between classroom and the field would be revolutionary to education and student knowledge.
Of course, this would involve overhauling our entire education system.
But it is a thought.
An intriguing thought.
Bartholomae captures this process of adapting to a new community in his writing "Inventing the University." He outlines the struggles that first-year writers face as they attempt to fit the academic discourse when writing. Since they may not feel ready to be included in this community and lack the experience they feel is necessary to fit in, students will alter their writing to fit what they feel is appropriate for the context in which they are writing. It is a process of determining how to use different voices for different roles and allow each to develop. This may require elimination of the "clean" shallow writing which may be safe but does not fit the ultimate discourse of academia.
He also discusses the struggle of writers to create truly original material. When so much has already been said, the "off-stage" voices of previous writing and text mars the originality of most writing. I think that this is why science fields are so intriguing to me. After you spend time learning to do science and think science by studying what has already been done, lies an open frontier. New discoveries retain originality and can be reported without overtones of other voices. This opportunity for invention is why I am pursuing science.
However, Bartholomae's idea that students must engage in "artificial work" before truly being integrated into the academic community holds for science as well. Students must be subject to hours of "knowledge telling" before reaching the next level. I wish this process could somewhat be altered to focus toward making larger connections between concepts. Breaking through the glass ceiling between classroom and the field would be revolutionary to education and student knowledge.
Of course, this would involve overhauling our entire education system.
But it is a thought.
An intriguing thought.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Bridging the gap
I was just writing my paper comparing two genres of writing in the field of exercise science when I decided to switch gears and do some blogging. As I was reading the essay on public intellectuals and how they should function in society, I was shocked with the similarities to the paper I was just writing. I am trying to portray the gap between science research and the reading and practice of the general public. There is so much being discovered on the scientific end that doesn't get filtered down to a broader audience. This is extremely comparable to the role of the "public intellectuals"- people who can bridge the gap between academia and communities to use research to address social issues. I feel like this gap between academia and the human condition has been widening and the longer it goes unaddressed, the more difficult it will be to bridge.
In this time when the economy is so bad and jobs are scarce, there are tons of articles on "hot jobs" in fields that are in demand and growing. Yes, our society is going to need more engineers and doctors but I have yet to see "public intellectual" listed as a booming career. Public intellectual is not so much a job title but a role in society. Public intellectuals can have many job titles but must be intelligent, good communicators, and be willing and able to think abstractly and break down behavior and idea barriers. Bridging the science-humanity bridge takes more than pure engineering but an element of creating connections between people and ideas. This is idealistic in theory but in reality is very difficult to achieve. Not many are able to understand this delicate balance, especially with the unintentional yet well defined class system in society.
At first I was at a loss as to how to identify public intellectuals in my field since the traits seemed too abstract to simply research. However, I called my mom who is a senior center director and listened to her input. She comes in contact with many people who are extremely educated yet are willing and able to make their work accessible to the audience they are addressing.
One example is Dr. Leslie Neuman who is a neurologist that specializes in Parkinson's Disease at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Rapids. He is a very accomplished researcher yet holds conferences open to Parkinson's Patients such as Meet the Researchers held last November. He has even made multiple trips to Cadillac to speak with the Parkinson's support group. He does a great job of tailoring his presentation to his audience by making it understandable to patients and caregivers. This makes facing the disease a lot easier for these people who are frightened and overwhelmed.
These are the kind of public intellectual that our society needs and will always be a "hot career"- not for the money but for the benefit to society. I hope that I don't lose sight of this idea as I delve deeper into academia.
Kaitlyn
In this time when the economy is so bad and jobs are scarce, there are tons of articles on "hot jobs" in fields that are in demand and growing. Yes, our society is going to need more engineers and doctors but I have yet to see "public intellectual" listed as a booming career. Public intellectual is not so much a job title but a role in society. Public intellectuals can have many job titles but must be intelligent, good communicators, and be willing and able to think abstractly and break down behavior and idea barriers. Bridging the science-humanity bridge takes more than pure engineering but an element of creating connections between people and ideas. This is idealistic in theory but in reality is very difficult to achieve. Not many are able to understand this delicate balance, especially with the unintentional yet well defined class system in society.
At first I was at a loss as to how to identify public intellectuals in my field since the traits seemed too abstract to simply research. However, I called my mom who is a senior center director and listened to her input. She comes in contact with many people who are extremely educated yet are willing and able to make their work accessible to the audience they are addressing.
One example is Dr. Leslie Neuman who is a neurologist that specializes in Parkinson's Disease at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Rapids. He is a very accomplished researcher yet holds conferences open to Parkinson's Patients such as Meet the Researchers held last November. He has even made multiple trips to Cadillac to speak with the Parkinson's support group. He does a great job of tailoring his presentation to his audience by making it understandable to patients and caregivers. This makes facing the disease a lot easier for these people who are frightened and overwhelmed.
These are the kind of public intellectual that our society needs and will always be a "hot career"- not for the money but for the benefit to society. I hope that I don't lose sight of this idea as I delve deeper into academia.
Kaitlyn
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Scientific literature as argumentation?
Scientific literature has a unique reputation in today's society. I feel as though the vast majority of people rarely interact with scientific journals directly and many may feel intimidated by the scope of publications available and complexity of the language. However, some will attempt to navigate this field of academia to look for a specific topic to satisfy a curiosity, an assignment, or just a quest for knowledge.
However, even among those who frequent PubMed or Nature, I believe that few (including myself) would immediately associate scientific literature with argumentation. However, when I began to think of scientific literature as argumentation, I could make strong associations and see the inherent connection.
A scientific paper is a very structured argument about why the researcher's proposed hypothesis is correct. The methods and results provide a context for the information presented and the discussion states the reasons backed by the evidence already presented. It is beautifully logical. However, not all scientific articles that attempt to make an argument are set up this way.
For example, I came upon a scientific article that was of special interest to me entitled, "Iron supplementation in athletes- first do no harm" that appeared in the journal Nutrition. It was not primary literature but a review that covered many elements of iron supplementation to make the claim that iron supplements should be more tightly controlled and only used by athletes who are clinically iron deficient. The reasoning behind this claim was that additional iron supplementation when normal (or even low) iron levels existed had no benefit on performance. Additionally, higher iron levels may damage the liver or heart and increase the risk of diabetes.
However, I feel like the argument was rather one sided and weak as it failed to recognize that some non-deficient athletes can be helped by supplements and it did not attempt to address the issue of appropriate dosages. I believe it was meant to be read by doctors and health professionals who work with athletes as well as researchers interested in iron regulation. However, the audience may include ambitous athletes who took it upon themselves to learn about professional recommendations in iron supplementation.
I found the argumentation of this article especially interesting because of my own research on iron regulation in female runners this semester. I am working on a project investigating elements that effect iron regulation. We are focusing on hormonal control as well as monocyte recycling. This article made no mention of hormonal control or variations in recycling mechanisms. This is likely because it was published in 2004 before this newer research had been released yet.
I have a unique perspective on the issue as I am a runner who is taking iron supplements after an experience with severe anemia as well as a researcher in the field of iron regulation. I think that this article does a good job of summarizing relevant research in the field but makes a one sided argument. It gives many examples of situations where supplementation is not helpful but I think it is lacking in showing how prevalent an issue it is in certain populations. I agree with many of the points that were made but I think the article fails to recognize what a complex issue this is. Obviously the first objective is to "do no harm," but in this case the long term harm is silent and latent but the potential harm by not supplementing may be an impeding sacrificed competitive season. Iron supplementation only given to the clinically deficient is like waiting for a problem to occur and then fixing it.
Reading this article makes me want to sit down with the researchers and writers and ask them about their claims. Since there is still a lot of grey area in this field, I am really curious on other's ideas and perspectives. It is enjoyable to be able to read a scientific article with a critical eye because usually the scientific jargon and level of understanding of material is beyond the scope of my current knowledge.
I will revisit this issue in the future as this iron research project is ongoing and I am hoping that this blog can help me to share my findings and ideas.
Kaitlyn
However, even among those who frequent PubMed or Nature, I believe that few (including myself) would immediately associate scientific literature with argumentation. However, when I began to think of scientific literature as argumentation, I could make strong associations and see the inherent connection.
A scientific paper is a very structured argument about why the researcher's proposed hypothesis is correct. The methods and results provide a context for the information presented and the discussion states the reasons backed by the evidence already presented. It is beautifully logical. However, not all scientific articles that attempt to make an argument are set up this way.
For example, I came upon a scientific article that was of special interest to me entitled, "Iron supplementation in athletes- first do no harm" that appeared in the journal Nutrition. It was not primary literature but a review that covered many elements of iron supplementation to make the claim that iron supplements should be more tightly controlled and only used by athletes who are clinically iron deficient. The reasoning behind this claim was that additional iron supplementation when normal (or even low) iron levels existed had no benefit on performance. Additionally, higher iron levels may damage the liver or heart and increase the risk of diabetes.
However, I feel like the argument was rather one sided and weak as it failed to recognize that some non-deficient athletes can be helped by supplements and it did not attempt to address the issue of appropriate dosages. I believe it was meant to be read by doctors and health professionals who work with athletes as well as researchers interested in iron regulation. However, the audience may include ambitous athletes who took it upon themselves to learn about professional recommendations in iron supplementation.
I found the argumentation of this article especially interesting because of my own research on iron regulation in female runners this semester. I am working on a project investigating elements that effect iron regulation. We are focusing on hormonal control as well as monocyte recycling. This article made no mention of hormonal control or variations in recycling mechanisms. This is likely because it was published in 2004 before this newer research had been released yet.
I have a unique perspective on the issue as I am a runner who is taking iron supplements after an experience with severe anemia as well as a researcher in the field of iron regulation. I think that this article does a good job of summarizing relevant research in the field but makes a one sided argument. It gives many examples of situations where supplementation is not helpful but I think it is lacking in showing how prevalent an issue it is in certain populations. I agree with many of the points that were made but I think the article fails to recognize what a complex issue this is. Obviously the first objective is to "do no harm," but in this case the long term harm is silent and latent but the potential harm by not supplementing may be an impeding sacrificed competitive season. Iron supplementation only given to the clinically deficient is like waiting for a problem to occur and then fixing it.
Reading this article makes me want to sit down with the researchers and writers and ask them about their claims. Since there is still a lot of grey area in this field, I am really curious on other's ideas and perspectives. It is enjoyable to be able to read a scientific article with a critical eye because usually the scientific jargon and level of understanding of material is beyond the scope of my current knowledge.
I will revisit this issue in the future as this iron research project is ongoing and I am hoping that this blog can help me to share my findings and ideas.
Kaitlyn
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Collision of science and rhetoric
After reading my previous blog post, I would like to use this post to refine my claims of death of mature reasoning in our society. Although it may appear like mature reasoning is on the decline after following politics or watching certain television shows, perhaps mature reasoning is just taking different forms.
As I familiarize myself with blogs, I am finding more and more quality material written with mature reasoning. They definitely don't fit my first perception of mature reasoning, but I think that may be why they are an intriguing media form to analyze.
I came upon a very intriguing blog on exercise physiology today called The Science of Sport. It is kept by Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas who both earned Ph.D.'s in exercise physiology from the University of Cape Town. I think this is an example of blogs at their best.
The self-proclaimed blog of "scientific comment and analysis of sporting performance" does a great job of combining science with engaging commentary. The contributors post about current developments in physiology and shed light on common myths and misconceptions. They will often take on common arguments in the field and state the facts of both sides and support their own opinion. Therefore, there is no "main argument" of the blog but arguments of each post. I perused arguments ranging from barefoot running to outlandish advertising claims for performance and wellness products. Each argument addressed possible counter-arguments, and did so conversationally while retaining a level of professionalism.
It was definitely written to be informative and enjoyable for people who are intrigued by the field. These are the people who will likely become followers. However, I can see this site as being a great resource for those who are seeking information on a certain topic, even though it doesn't reach "article" status.
Although rhetoric basically means "the art of argument" across genres, the techniques definitely differ. This blog utilized links, differing styles of text, and headings to separate ideas. I think this would only be effective in this "blog genre." It is extremely effective in this context but if it was put in a more scientific setting, it would immediately lose credibility. However, for the purpose and context of the blog, the techniques and writing were very effective.
I thought this was an interesting collision of rhetoric and science. Making science readable and enjoyable for the general public is a huge step in the right direction. I am hoping to analyze this blog further in my genre analysis paper coming up.
Kaitlyn
As I familiarize myself with blogs, I am finding more and more quality material written with mature reasoning. They definitely don't fit my first perception of mature reasoning, but I think that may be why they are an intriguing media form to analyze.
I came upon a very intriguing blog on exercise physiology today called The Science of Sport. It is kept by Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas who both earned Ph.D.'s in exercise physiology from the University of Cape Town. I think this is an example of blogs at their best.
The self-proclaimed blog of "scientific comment and analysis of sporting performance" does a great job of combining science with engaging commentary. The contributors post about current developments in physiology and shed light on common myths and misconceptions. They will often take on common arguments in the field and state the facts of both sides and support their own opinion. Therefore, there is no "main argument" of the blog but arguments of each post. I perused arguments ranging from barefoot running to outlandish advertising claims for performance and wellness products. Each argument addressed possible counter-arguments, and did so conversationally while retaining a level of professionalism.
It was definitely written to be informative and enjoyable for people who are intrigued by the field. These are the people who will likely become followers. However, I can see this site as being a great resource for those who are seeking information on a certain topic, even though it doesn't reach "article" status.
Although rhetoric basically means "the art of argument" across genres, the techniques definitely differ. This blog utilized links, differing styles of text, and headings to separate ideas. I think this would only be effective in this "blog genre." It is extremely effective in this context but if it was put in a more scientific setting, it would immediately lose credibility. However, for the purpose and context of the blog, the techniques and writing were very effective.
I thought this was an interesting collision of rhetoric and science. Making science readable and enjoyable for the general public is a huge step in the right direction. I am hoping to analyze this blog further in my genre analysis paper coming up.
Kaitlyn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)