Category Archives: Uncategorized

As the quarter comes to an end and it’s time to close the chapter of my freshman year of college, I’ve had some time to reflect on my research process throughout my Critical Thinking and Writing class over the last ten weeks.

I feel as though my skills as a researcher really improved. My process in conducting and reporting research was enriched with all of the sources we studied in class such as BEAM writing, the 6 C’s, and learning to enter an ongoing conversation by making an argument and including my own personal views in my writing.

BEAM allowed me provide my readers with background, exhibits, arguments, and methods. In using this outline for the research process, I was able to achieve a critically strong understanding of the subject of interest, and convey my research in a way that was thorough and clear to my audience.

As a recap, the 6 C’s are:

• Content: What is the main idea? For documents, list important, points/phrases/words/sentences. For images, describe what you see.
• Citation: Who created this and when? What type of source is it?
• Communication: What is the author’s bias or point of view? Who is the intended audience? Why was the source created? What is the tone of the document or image?
• Context: What is going on in the world, country, region or locality when this was created? What other sources might help provide answers to this question? What else do we need to know to better understand the evidence in this source?
• Connections: How does this connect to what you already know? To what other academic or popular conversations does it connect?
• Conclusions: What contributions does this make to our understanding of research, student life at SCU, or a topic of relevance to your fellow students? How does this text (and/or your experience locating it, reading it, and making sense of it) relate to our class readings? How did you come to these conclusion?

This was also another outline that helped my organize my research and arguments, and provided me with a checklist when revising my drafts.

I think this quarter really helped me find my voice when writing. I have always been taught to never use “I” in an essay, nor include personal views of any sort. I felt the most confident I have ever felt when writing an essay or research paper, and was actually excited to complete each assignment. I will miss this class, but feel as though my writing skills became enriched with new strategies and ways to communicate that I had never learned before, and I am excited to apply what I have learned in other classes.

Signing off for good,

-FH

I finished my infographic! Woot! Here is the final project:

I decided to use an infographic for my composition format because in the science world, posters are made to relay information gathered from research projects that summarize each aspect of the conducted research. I decided that since my project had to be constructed using technology, a poster was not an option, but an infographic was a very close second. In this way, I could use this source to relay my information from my research argument in a similar way as something you would see when walking through the halls of a science department or during a scientific seminar.

My targeted audience was faculty, department heads, and undergraduate students involved in the biological sciences, in addition to those associated with chemistry as my research also involved incorporating a few alterations to undergraduate chemistry curriculum. The format I chose for my infographic was one the that was separated into multiple sections by two alternating colors and differing bolded subheadings that were followed by a short summarized blurb about that specific sub-header. I hoped that viewers would see my infographic and be caught by the bolded word “biology” in addition to the green hues as this is a color that is often associated with science. I also added small clip art images that related to the information I was summarizing in that particular section of my infographic.

The information I included on my visual was what I considered to be the main points of my researched argument. Because my essay was solely based on biology undergraduate reformation, it was very easy to pinpoint which arguments would be the most influential to see on a poster as there was no other aspects to my paper other than proposals of change. However, I found it incredibly difficult to summarize all of the extensive research I had conducted about the main points I made. Because each proposal was so specific and complex, it was hard to simplify the information into a short enough statement that a reader would not be overwhelmed with too many words and become uninterested, but enough that I could be as influential and informative as possible.

I’m very pleased with how my project turned out, and I really enjoyed being given the option to express some artistic creativity, along with the challenge of using a digital format that I was not familiar with initially.

-FH

I am finding this assignment to be much easier than I expected. Maybe this is because it’s fun to have the opportunity to express my creative side, maybe because I get to use a format that is new to me for composing my final project, or maybe because I find this process to be much easier than actually writing a research argument essay (which it is).

In having my argument essay complete, the only thing I have to do is decide which points I made in my essay are the most important, and will be the most persuasive to my audience. My audience for this project is my fellow peers, who may know a little bit about my topic, but not so much as to completely comprehend all of my terminology and reason for why my topic is important. My job is to inform my peers to the greatest extent of why they should care about undergraduate biology reformation, and I can do that by organizing my information into an infographic.

The translation of my information has proven to be quite easy for the most part, but in regard to length, it’s been a little more difficult trying to summarize my points to really drive the point home. I want my audience to see my visual and immediately think oh this is about science! (maybe they won’t be so enthusiastic but you get the point). For this reason, I chose my color scheme to be green with small visuals of science paraphernalia (a visual will come in a later blog post, I promise!). Words that are important and are the main points I want to make are bolded, and information is summarized in a few key words or short phrases. In this way, my audience will not be overwhelmed with mounds of information, and will not become lost in what the main point of my infographic really is.

-FH

The time has come to complete my last Critical Thinking and Writing assignment for the quarter.

Not that I haven’t absolutely loved this class, but I think I can speak for myself in addition to the rest of my peers when I say we’re all ready for this school year to come to an end. The assignment is to transform my research argument paper into a multimodal project. Whether this be a video, audio essay, image, infographic, website, screencast, or any other form of technology available for me to use, I need to get my creative juices flowing.

I’ll take 12 please and thank you

The thought of making a video terrifies me, especially after writing and composing my ninth grade agricultural biology final project (if you want a good laugh and to see me wearing a stick on mustache check this video out). As a science major, I am used to making informational posters laden with information about whatever research I conducted. One problem: this isn’t technological. Now I’m panicking and thinking great, another humiliating video in the near future.

That’s when I looked at Professor Lueck’s posted powerpoint explaining the assignment more in depth. I realized I didn’t know what an infographic was, and I decided to look at the websites that were capable of making these technological designs. To my surprise, I was greeted with templates that looked very similar to what a scientific poster would look like if it were in an online format. I could feel the juices flowing at this point, and realized that this source would be the best one to use for my project as it was very representative of something you would see in the science community.

-FH

As I was drafting my research argument essay, I was finding it incredibly hard to make my own claims. It seems as though after conducting extensive research on the need for reformation of undergraduate biology curriculum, every idea has been thought of, proposed, rejected or implemented. So how am I supposed to make a thesis in which my own original argument is proposed?

This is an issue I have come across in almost all writing tasks I’ve been assigned. I feel as though I am regurgitating others’ ideas or completely lacking in creativity. It is during these times that I feel mediocre in my writing, and wish that I had the talent that so many others do of coming up with unorthodox or insightful ideas. Even in conversation, whether it be debating controversial topics or even just proposing an alternative idea rather than In-n-Out for lunch, this obstacle has always hindered me.

It wasn’t until after I had written the skeleton of my draft (which was only deciding which sources from my annotated bibliography I wanted to use to make sure I covered the most area of my topic) that I realized I had a thesis in my mind all along. More importantly, I realized that since my argument was part of an ongoing conversation amongst experts, scientists, national science organizations, and department heads at institutes of higher education, my thesis did not have to be so cut and dry.

There is room for challenge and acceptance in forming an original argument when entering a current conversation. And so, I could call for the rejection of certain ideas and the acceptance of others, then use my sources to provide examples upon which I could argue in support of or rejection of. In this way, my ideas for why I agree or disagree are original as it is my own personal viewpoint, and my reasoning is formed by not only my research, but also my experience as an undergraduate biology major.

As a result, my paper did not only consist of my own original arguments, but it was strong in its structure as it included background, examples, analysis and coherent, structural flow of my arguments.

-FH

After the brutal huffing and puffing of climbing two flights of stairs in the library at 8:25 in the morning, I finally reached the tech room where one of our librarians, Gail, was waiting for my Critical Thinking and Writing class.

We were greeted with a short welcome and introduction about our activity by Gail, then we were handed short slips of paper that had website urls printed on them. After typing each link in to a search bar, we were prompted with the task of creating short, but thorough, annotated bibliographies without citations.

Gail helped us with each of our summaries, and pointed out a few things I did not think of doing in my own annotated bibliography I had finished the day before. She advised us to look up information about the authors. Because each source she had picked was a scholarly article, the authors consisted of doctors, scientists, physiologists, heads of nationally regarded organizations, teachers, and the like. In the example annotation she provided, the source and summary were supported by the author’s background. In my mind, I had assumed that if my bibliography listed the science magazine or scholarly journal where I found my article, there was no need for this extra information.

I realized that this extra description can strengthen an annotation greatly. In providing a background of the author, the audience is reassured and given a sense of trust in your summary of the article you chose, as credentials from those with degrees in higher education (whether that be an associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, Ph.D., M.D., etc.) are often regarded as respectable and trustworthy.

If I ever do have the task of conducting research and writing an annotated bibliography again, I will definitely make sure to include this component in my summaries.

-FH

After perusing through over 30 academic articles about the ongoing conversation   of the development of biological sciences at institutes of higher education, I came across an article titled “Implementing the Recommended Curriculum in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at a Regional Comprehensive University through a Biology/Chemistry Double Major: The Minnesota State University Moorhead Experience” that I found to be incredibly intriguing. While many biologists, college faculty, and national science organizations are calling for a universal reform of undergraduate biology curriculum, one source offered a completely unorthodox idea: offering a program that results in a double major in biology and chemistry.

The completion of the Biochemistry and Biotechnology Emphasis program at Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM) leads to a B.A. degree with a double major in biology and chemistry. This program implements the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology’s recommended curriculum in biochemistry and molecular biology, and meets the needs of two groups of undergraduate students: those who plan to continue their education at graduate school, and those who plan to enter the workforce in the biotechnology industry. It incorporates inquiry-based and investigative laboratories during all four years of undergraduate study, which has been noted as the greatest benefit of the program in both the quantity and quality of the lab experience. In the six years that this program had been integrated upon the publishing of this article, forty seven students had completed the program. Of these forty seven, twenty students directly entered the workforce, sixteen went on to graduate school, and eleven entered professional school. All feedback from faculty has been extremely positive, and students are no longer trained to be science majors, but fully capable scientists.

This approach provides a very different method of teaching biology and chemistry compared to any of my other sources that I came across. In creating a program that specializes in biochemistry and biotechnology, undergraduates not only obtain a well rounded education in biology and chemistry and their relationships, but a double major. With the results being so extraordinary in the success of students after obtaining their double major, this may prove to be a program that should be seriously considered to implement as an alternative to a biology major or chemistry major.

-FH

This post is in continuum of my previous post, Rhetorical Research Report Strategies.

For my next research excavation, I am conducting my research on the development of biological sciences and chemistry curriculum at institutes of higher education. I have found that there has been little change in the course structuring universally in the last thirty years, and because of this I have had to adjust my research strategy to focus less on the history/development of the science program, and more on the call to action and proposals for reform. This is a common move in rhetorical research, as “rhetorical reading strategy requires the writer to discover what is worth writing about and to decide how to say it as or after they read their sources. The strategy requires writers to change their content goals and to adjust their writing plans as their understanding of the topic develops” (Kantz 80).

With this change comes the possibility of creating gaps in my writing. Because I was previously writing about the development of my topic, and now I am entering a current ongoing conversation about it, this leaves room for gaps in my research. Gaps may occur in three ways:

1. When a reader is not a member of the author’s intended audience
2. When a reader disagrees with or does not understand the text
3. If the writer has misrepresented or misunderstood the material

The first two scenarios are very relevant with my research. Because my topic is solely about the sciences, and more specifically biology and chemistry, it narrows   the audience interested in my research findings. In addition, I’m sure there are many who may not understand the need for reform, or those who think reform is unnecessary. It is my job as the author to be as forthcoming and honest with my audience as possible, and to include as much of the subject matter as I can.

Kantz states that in order to discover gaps, students may need to learn to think of the paper as an opportunity to teach someone, to solve someone’s problem or to answer someone’s questions of “Why?” “How?” and “So what?” It is at this point in which Kinneavy’s triangular diagram of the rhetorical situation becomes eminent. It’s three corners consist of the Encoder (the speaker/writer), the Decoder (the audience), and Reality (content). By asking questions of my sources using the triangle, I can look to fill the gaps that have been created, and drive a point home by making and supporting a claim that transitions from one point in the discussion to the next.

Rhetorical reading leads to discoveries about the text, and so new questions can be formed and original ideas procured, and the conversation can continue.

-FH

After reading Margaret Kantz’s article, “Helping Students Use Textual Sources Persuasively,” I felt like I had just read a summary of every struggle I have faced as a writer. She describes a theoretical situation in which an able writer received an average grade on a paper when an above average grade was expected. Through analysis of what went wrong, Kantz describes the difficulties writers face when reporting on a research topic, and offers alternatives in the process of conducting and reporting research from a rhetorical approach.

Kantz claims, “..writing a synthesis can vary in difficultly according to the number and length of the sources, the abstractness or familiarity of the topic, the uses that the writer must make of the material, the degree and quality of original thought required, and the extent to which the sources will supply the structure and purpose of the new paper” (70). For me, this is a concept that I struggle with greatly in my research. Because I have access to so many sources when conducting research, it becomes increasingly difficult to know when to include a source, what to include in regards to relevancy, and how to make one idea flow to the next.

Me with all my research and having no with where to begin organizing it

She writes about how students often cling to narrative structuring devices and expect textbooks and other authoritative sources either to tell them the truth or the express an opinion with which they may agree or disagree. I found this to be extremely applicable to my research methodology. Throughout my schooling career, I have always been told to not include personal opinion in research and just report the facts. As a student, I expect factual texts to tell me the truth, or to express an opinion with which I may agree or disagree, but never to view texts as arguments (a point Kantz makes in her article). Aka, research is black and white. BUT IT’S NOT. There is an in between grey area that must be explored to ensure the writer’s credibility, and not get caught up in writing a historical narrative or boring summary. So how am I supposed to write my research report rhetorically?

Kantz provides an answer to my question, and also clarifies the definition of fact and opinion in rhetorical terms: “In rhetorical argument a fact is a claim that an audience will accept as being true without requiring proof, although they may ask for an explanation. An opinion is a claim that an audience will not accept as true without proof, and which, after the proof is given, the audience may well decide has only a limited truth” (76). So, when this unorthodox idea of including my interpretation and conveying to the audience that I am including my own opinion of a topic in my writing presents itself in my writing, it is pertinent for me as the author to provide proof, which even though it may or may not be accepted, I conveyed my claim properly and maintained my credibility as the author.

To be continued…

-FH

In locating an article of relevance to my topic, I had to broaden my horizons and stray away from solely looking at the science program at Santa Clara. Instead, my findings that biology majors spent the most time in lab per week and that freshmen reported feeling the intro science series is very rigorous sparked my interest in the development of science majors core curriculum, mainly of biology and chemistry.

I found a scholarly article titled, “The Impacts of an “Organic First” Chemistry Curriculum at a Liberal Arts College,” using OmniFile- a database that one of our librarians at SCU suggested we use for our further research not in the archives. In watching a tutorial about scholarly articles, I was prepared with what to look for in finding a source that would provide me with rich and reliable information, in addition to providing me with the information that scholarly articles are the strongest to use for research as they must be peer reviewed by those involved in the specific area of interest before publication.

By typing in “higher education,” “biology” and “curriculum” into the search toolbars, I was greeted with 210 results that contained these three key words. I recorded 30 articles for later use, but this one really caught my eye. The article came from results of curriculum change from Washington & Jefferson College.

Because organic chemistry is usually taught during a major’s second year and general chemistry is taught first, this proposal took me by surprise. That is, until I read the purpose for this change:

“…because general chemistry is a disjointed collection of topics that tends not to correlate the reactivity and physical properties of molecules with their structure, it is not necessarily the best entry into the study of chemistry. Additionally, because general chemistry is often very similar to high school chemistry, students may be successful without needing to develop necessary study skills. Finally, general chemistry requires a substantial background in mathematics: students may be more successful with the topics found in general chemistry if given more time to bring their college-level math skills up to speed. Organic chemistry has none of these limitations: it is inherently much more coherent than general chemistry because it is a true subdiscipline of chemistry; organic chemistry is symbolic and conceptual more than mathematical; and it draws on a basic high school background rather than repeat it, thereby placing students on a more level playing field in largely unfamiliar territory” (995).

This article is exactly the type of scholarly contribution I was hoping to find. It challenges the traditional structure of science programs, and provides positive results from the shift, including improved student performance on standardized analytic exams, attracting more majors, and their biology program reported greater success in introductory biology. I want to enter this conversation by further investigating core curriculum of the sciences, and with so many articles of interest at hand I think the only problem I’ll have is organizing all of this complex information. 

-FH