Ashley Levesque

Revise 1-2 paragraphs

ENG110l

Original:

Christina Haas shows a relation to the IMRaD cheat sheet when she conducted an experiment on college students to see the progress they made throughout their college experience. One of Haas’ subjects was named Eliza and she was a biology major. Haas was curious as to how Eliza would adapt to the discourse of science. “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) Haas examined the changes in one of her subjects throughout her (eliza’s) undergraduate studies of science. During the beginning of the experiment, Haas noticed that Eliza was not exhibiting the discourse of science behaviors specifically in writing. Eliza initially exhibited the use of autonomous text (timeless entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture) rather than viewing it as a rhetorical text. Haas sheds light on the use of rhetorical frames when she states, “Elements of the rhetorical frame include participants and their relationships and motives, and several layers of context”(48). Haas is explaining that in order to understand a piece of writing you must read it in the context that the author puts it. Viewing the text without the context it was meant to be viewed is simply looking at it incorrectly. Writing is important in a scientific discourse as Haas’ states, “A great number of studies of science have focused on discourse – conversations and lab notes as well as conference presentations and formal articles…”(44). Haas is essentially stating that a majority of a science discourse can be explained through the writing and articles formed by those already in the discourse. In Haas’ study Eliza was viewing text as a means to simply answer questions rather than a deeper meaning and understanding that the author intended it to be. However, by the time Eliza left college she a greater understanding of scientific text and she had the ability to read text and view it as it was intended to be viewed rather than as autonomous. In order for Eliza to be able to be considered part of the discourse of science she must be able to write as a scientist would or in IMRaD format that explains the rhetorical frame.

 

Revised:

Christina Haas writer of Learning to read Biology shows a relation to the IMRaD cheat sheet and the discourse of science when she conducts an experiment on a college student to see the progress made throughout her college experience. This relation becomes prominent during her discussion of her subject Eliza. Eliza was an undergraduate student studying Biology and chemistry. Haas’ experiment can be explained as “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” (46) This specifically relates to the discourse of science because in order to be in a science discourse you must exhibit the actions, saying, and doings of that discourse. The use of IMRaD is a vessel in order to achieve the correct doings of scientific writing. For example when Haas initially examines Eliza she describes her as a student who “may have tacitly subscribed to the doctrine of autonomous texts early in her college career…” (46). Essentially Haas noticed that Eliza was not exhibiting the discourse of science behaviors specifically in writing. Eliza instead exhibited the use of autonomous text (timeless entities functioning without contextual support from author, reader, or culture) rather than viewing it as a rhetorical text. Haas sheds light on the use of rhetorical frames when she states, “Elements of the rhetorical frame include participants and their relationships and motives, and several layers of context”(48). Haas is explaining that in order to understand a piece of writing you must read it in the context that the author puts it. This shows that Eliza is not familiar with the Discourse of science since she is unable to find a deeper meaning behind the text. Writing is important in a scientific discourse as Haas’ states, “A great number of studies of science have focused on discourse – conversations and lab notes as well as conference presentations and formal articles…”(44). Haas is essentially stating that a majority of a science discourse can be explained through the writing and articles formed by those already in the discourse. In Haas’ study Eliza was viewing text as a means to simply answer questions rather than a deeper meaning and understanding that the author intended it to be. However, by the time Eliza left college she a greater understanding of scientific text and she had the ability to read text and view it as it was intended to be viewed rather than as autonomous. In order for Eliza to be able to be considered part of the discourse of science she must be able to write as a scientist would or in IMRaD format that explains the rhetorical frame.