English 3010 Portfolio Project
Reflective Argument
Student 1
Student #
Access ID
DATE
Contents Page
1. Reflective Argument (pp. 3-11)
2. Appendix (pp.12-34)
a. Rhetorical Analysis (pp.12-19)
b. Data Collection Report (pp.19-21)
c. Discourse Community Synthesis Project (pp.21-28)
d. Data Collection Report Interview (pp.29-30)
e. Reflection Paper 3&4 (pp.30-34)
I. Reflective Argument
Writing is a powerful tool to express oneself and offer new intellect to conversations. It is also a powerful vehicle of communication that when used properly can sway a whole audience or gain scholarly respect. Personally, learning to view writing this way has given me motivation to choose my words carefully and actually construct something that contributes to the academic community or another discourse community. Since my English 1020 class with Wendy, I now write to contribute to intellectual conversations of my interest and not to simply fulfill assignment requirements. Writing is not simply rambling of prose to turn in an assignment. For me, it is rather an ongoing and invested process that is always being reconstructed as I come up with new ideas. Since I adopted this new perspective and awareness of writing in my English 1020 class, I was able to identify my profile as a writer as I entered into English 3010.
Upon entering English 3010, I struggled with finding an efficient writing process and using extensive evidence to back up my claims. I used to think my words and a few citations were enough to gain the audience’s trust. Even in my personal reflective paper for the semester, I noticed I did not describe specific examples to support my claims as a writer. In fact, I struggled with specificity in general and always just reasoned that my audience will know what I mean by this. However, that was not always the case and I was always getting feedback such as, “what do you mean by that” and “explain further.” In regards to my complications with utilizing an efficient writing process, I could just not seem to settle down on a strategy that worked for me. I was constantly changing my brainstorming habits from free writing to a specific outline or even a generalized list and writing from there. It seemed I had so much to say I just could not convey it in an organized fashion in my paper or my pre writing. My writing was constantly changing and I often deleted whole documents to start over on my new idea. Eventually my piece was produced, but I was still never fully satisfied. It was obvious that I needed a new and proficient approach to writing to wrangle in all of my roaming thoughts. It was my English 3010 class that helped me assess myself fully as a writer and develop my constant inconsistencies that I held within my writing. Wendy’s section of English 3010 allowed me to reach this point of progression by centering the curriculum on the four learning outcomes stated in the syllabus. Also, analyzing different texts in my medical discourse as well as reading writing studies literature greatly attributed to my progression as a writer. Furthermore, it allowed me to apply my learned connections between writing studies and my medical discourse. For example, Beaufort’s five domains of knowledge proved to be the universal method to writing for a particular discourse and Brandt offered light onto how doctors act as literacy sponsors for their patients. Ultimately, my English 3010 class has a unique approach that allowed me to actually accomplish mastery over the four learning outcomes, which is evident throughout my texts written this semester, enhanced use of rhetorical appeals, more efficient writing strategies, and analysis of my medical discourse.
In order to prove my gain of proficiency, I will organize the next paragraphs in sequential order of the learning outcomes noted on the syllabus. I will provide evidence of my writing to support my claim of competency in those specific areas. Specifically, I will reference the writing assignments I completed this semester such as: Rhetorical Analysis, Data Collection Report, and Discourse Community Synthesis Project. Then, I will conclude with how I can use this knowledge of writing for future endeavors as well as the adaptability of the curriculum.
In reflecting on Learning Outcome 1, I have succeeded in locating, comprehending, analyzing, and understanding texts from my diverse medical discourse. My success in locating articles is attributed to the tutorial my class had with Wayne State librarian, Judith Arnold. Judith navigated the class through the multitude of Wayne State’s databases and academic journals. Importantly, she taught me to distinguish between scholarly texts such as, Journal of Medicine from not so academic ones such as, Physician’s Journal. Furthermore, my compliance with Judith’s lesson is evident from the sources I chose to analyze in the Rhetorical Analysis Project such as from the American Journal of Medical Quality, American Family Physician, and Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology.(18) Next, my comprehension and analysis of medical texts is apparent throughout my Rhetorical Analysis Project. Using Beaufort’s five domains of knowledge as a framework to dissect the texts, I was able to effectively conclude what distinguished medical communities’ texts from other discourses and felt confidence in possibly reproducing a medical text solely upon the foundational basis of the five domains of knowledge. As I read through my three medical texts, I noticed they all draw upon common values such as, “human health, acknowledgment of scientific ownership, accuracy, and the scientific method.” (13) Also I was able to draw conclusions of authorship values from analyzing the three texts in my Rhetorical Analysis Project and specifically examining the reference and acknowledgement pages of the three texts. In fact, my observations of numerous authors, acknowledgment pages, and the presence of authors who did not perform the study sparked my interest in the way that authorship is defined within the medical community and it led to determining my topic for the Discourse Community Synthesis Project. Since I was able to draw my final project idea from my one observation of acknowledgments within the medical texts, it is clear that I grasped an understanding of the text and even the medical discourse itself. In addition to defining similarities and discourse connections between the medical texts, I was about to point out their diversity. For example, I examined the different audiences of the texts and showed how they use specific rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos. One example is “the American Journal of Medical Quality article strongly utilizes the results of surveys, statistics, and other primary observations throughout the entire text.”(18) While the three texts are articles within the medical community, I found the texts were more specified to a more specific community within the broad range of a medical discourse. Also, I found diversity within the genre of three medical texts and were able to attribute these differences to contradicting functions the articles were written for. (16) It was the differences of these texts that allowed me to understand the immense diversity of complex medical subject matters and make sense of what unifies all of these different subsets of the medical community. Ultimately, this comprehension fulfilled my progress in Learning Outcome 1.
Upon reviewing Learning Outcome 2, I can confidently say that I was able to produce an extended research question that was both applicable to writing studies explored throughout English 3010 and my medical discourse. I accomplished this upon my incorporation of rhetorical strategies and relevant literature into the Discourse Community Synthesis Project. While examining this research question for the Discourse Community Synthesis Project, I was able to use research from primary sources such as interviewing my genetics professor, Dr. Tucker, and Dr. Diwadkar, head of my research lab at the University Health Center in regards to who should hold authorship. Additionally, I incorporated secondary sources encompassing diverse specialties among the medical community such as research, genetics, medical writers, and pharmaceutical companies. Importantly, I also utilized writing studies literature used both in and outside of the English 3010 classroom.(28) My research question that is relevant to both the course and my community is, “How does the medical community recognize sponsors, contributors, authors, and medical writers involved in constructing a medical paper and how does the new era of literacy Brandt mentions apply to the medical community’s evolution of authorship” (24)? My question takes a literary term such as “authorship” and applies it to the conversation the medical community is discussing about it. It is in my investigation of this question that I employ rhetoric strategies. Initially, I establish credibility by use of an article written by Brandt, who is widely accepted upon the writing community. I used her article, “Who’s The President” to support my eccentric idea that the definition of authorship is with the addition of ghostwriters and medical writers to the community.(21) Since Brandt proposes in her article that literacy has emerged into a new definition and has become a product of the so-called Information Age, my proposal does not sound as foreign or unacceptable. Also, my literature review within my introduction is aimed to build credibility of myself as the writer as well as to inform readers of the conversations people are having about authorship within the medical discourse. The literature review does this by confirming my proposal that authorship is emerging into a new definition and has different meanings in different contexts such as in different discourses. For example, my literature review on, “Time to redefine authorship: a conference to do so,” written Horton and Savage discusses a need to address the variances in assigning authorship within the medical community and the new employment of medical writers(23). Next, my use of evidence in specifying my claim is evident throughout my Discourse Community Synthesis Project. For example, I utilize a study done by Natasee on medical writing acknowledgements from 2000-2007 and then compare it with another done by Leo and Lacasse in 2010. Specifically, I say “In Nastasee’s study she found that there was a two-fold increase in the number of acknowledgments of medical writers from 2000 to 2007, however the percentage is still only at 11.3 percent.”(25) Additionally, I provide emotional appeal to my audience by bringing English discourses into the controversies of false authorship by stating, “The humanities argue that mere acknowledgement of a medical writer is not enough because it undermines the prestige of writing as a discipline and even attributes to academic dishonesty”(28). Furthermore, I fulfill the last component of Learning Outcome 2 by drawing on concepts from Gee, Penrose, Geisler, Beaufort, and Brandt. I utilize Gee’s statement that, “someone cannot engage in a Discourse in a less than fully fluent manner.”(26) To explain I say, “This lack of fluency and knowledge of some medical writers only involved in the discourse does not give readers a fair interpretation of what the actual medical Discourse intended to communicate”(26). Specifically, I use Beaufort’s five domains to explain how medical writers can write for the medical community that they are not entirely apart of (26). Penrose and Geisler’s proposal to writing with authority as a thinker can translate over into the medical discourse. I demonstrated this in my Synthesis Project by writing, “Penrose and Geisler offer ways in which medical writers can appear as insiders in the medical community by writing with more authority such as Roger, a graduate student, in their study.”(27) In sum, I was able to effectively incorporate my various sources into my research project and fulfill the objective for Learning Outcome 2.
Upon reflecting on Learning Outcome 3, I realized English 3010 made me aware of new writing process strategies and forced me to be open to different processes. Before this class I consistently utilized the same writing process, which was brainstorming/research, constructing a vague outline, draft, another draft, self revisions making sure it fits the writing assignment, peer revisions, and then the final text. While my consistent process earned me a hundred percent on the individual Rhetorical Analysis (12), it was not applicable for my group project. I now know that the writing process must be tweaked for different writing assignments and I just cannot assume my generic format will translate smoothly to all writing task. This was evident in my Data Collection Report, in which I worked with a group of five students in the diverse medical discourse. My group constructed a vague outline in which everyone was expected to analyze their interview or observation in terms of Beaufort’s five domains of knowledge. Then, my group assigned each person either the introduction, conclusion, or critical reflection. The problem was that my group did not discuss what each of us would be discussing about the five domains. After everyone completed their own separate outlines, drafts, revisions, and final copy, it was inserted it into the larger document. Also, transitional phrases such as “Next, Brooklynn will discuss her interview with Dr. Tucker” and the introduction informed the reader of the order of the speakers. However, the paper was about 20 pages long and somewhat repetitive. I guess I did not think how a reader would approach this massive paper because Wendy read the first couple pages and was already overwhelmed. From talking with Wendy, my group devised a plan to condense our material and incorporate the best points of each interview/observation into the five domains of knowledge framework. We went through each of our sections with a different colored highlighter in hand searching for the best examples of the medical communities’ five domains. Specifically, we assigned each domain a color and quickly condensed our monotonous paper. Then my group had to tackle the most difficult task, putting the fragments together. I wouldn’t allow my group to make the same mistake as previously, so my group met up for three days to reconstruct our work. Our strategy was having one person type while everyone else giving feedback on what to take from our highlighted portion and put into new words. Basically, we wrote it collectively while everyone was physically present. Even after that everyone revised the paper separately while tracking changes. As a result my group received an A and produced a successful paper due to our collective writing process strategy. Ultimately, I am now more aware of group writing strategies and the severe need to be specific and collaborate when in a group.