a discussion of karam defining and ideating during project 3
transcript of audio
00:00 In this first segment of Karam’s case study, I will discuss his work in the DFA to FYC course using the scaffolded design process to move through the projects in the course sequence.
00:10 However, I will not be using his first project. Instead, I will discuss how he used his 3rd project to complete the final redesign in Project 4.
00:18 To give some added context, Karam wrote an argumentative essay for Project 3, then used some of its content to draft a letter to a member of Congress in Project 4.
00:28 He argued that it should be mandated all physicians report emergency room patients found to be intoxicated while driving. While he was able to research and build an academic argument in Project 3, Karam adapted his writing to respond to a unique rhetorical situation where he acted as both a concerned
00:44 professional and a citizen. As the first two steps of the design process are to define and ideate, I am using Karam’s second and third design journals.
00:53 These two artifacts helped him to develop the Project 3 essay. Design Journals 2 and 3 will illustrate how Karam demonstrated the learning process.
01:06 I will begin by pulling up Karam’s second design journal here. Although the journal entry is quite brief, Karam has posed a scenario to introduce the problem.
01:16 Here’s what’s next… Karam writes, “patient comes into ED after an accident, patient is clearly drunk and complies with a blood ethanol test, should the physician call the cops.”
01:26 He has also outlined in bullet points what he will do to take a position on the matter and argue it.
01:32 He includes the following points: background information, examples, defining terms, and proposing a claim, and a counter argument. Interestingly, Karam also includes the term logos next to the claim and pathos for the ending paragraph.
01:46 The objective of the second design journal is to ideate how the problem will take shape in a material artifact. I asked students, how do you want to address the problem or issue you defined in the first design journal?
01:58 Much of the work scaffolded between the first two design journals, DJ1 and DJ2, winds up being non-linear. Because students are just beginning their projects, they have ideas about the topic and the genre, as well as considerations, like their prior knowledge and familiar examples.
02:14 So, both present over the work of the two journal entries. Karam neither included any reasoning nor provided context for why this issue seemed pertinent at the time, but I suspect that he was attempting to do two things with his third project.
02:27 1. position himself for a redesign in project four. 2. maintain consistency in themes and or subject matter that would broaden his understanding of the practice of medicine, even if it adjacent to, as with ethical issues in politics.
02:40 And 3. set goals for developing an effective persuasive essay. I make this inference because in Karam’s reflection of the project in Design Journal 5, which I’ll talk about a bit more later in the third segment, he writes, “but this is good though because it leaves me with something even better
02:57 in case in Project 4.” Moreover, in a few conversations I had with Karam, he expressed his concern for being able to write clearly and effectively in essays and reports because they were the types of genres that circulate within the medical field.
03:11 And as a Pre-Med student with an interest in Neuroscience, he was setting educational goals for himself. Regardless that the second article in the design journal, seen here, was short and general, Karam defined one problem and then began to ideate what he would do with the problem via the argumentative
03:26 essay. Could Karam have specified his position? An example of the problem? Or even begin to define the terms? Yes, of course.
03:34 However, this first step is exploratory. It is one of two first steps to capture ideas for the project and brainstorm.
03:41 Karam had an idea and began to define the shape of what he would do with the idea. Much like I have articulated in other facets of this dissertation, I call this the shape of the argument.
03:52 And the shape of something merely implies an outline- a rough sketch that the writer/designer can keep returning to fill in with details.
03:59 Based on a conversation we had during the first of Karam’s research interviews, I concluded that he wrote things down because that is how he moved through his thoughts.
04:06 He got them down on paper so that he could see them and check mark himself. The design process, specifically the 1st Define step, gave Karam open space to do what he needed for the topic or problem he planned to take up in the project. Because Karam was very methodical, he naturally moved from stating the problem to making a sort of to do list. If Karam were asked to brainstorm some other thoughts on his project topic, it may have wasted time for him- he may not have seen the value.
04:18 The design focused approach enabled Karam to continue to move through the through his process goals. Honestly, some of which he may have already established based on personal habit.
04:43 Applying the Cognitive Process Theory of Writing by Flower and Hayes, published in 1981’s CCC’S article, I recognize how habitual patterns in new writing scenarios created opportunity to expand on Karam’s writing toolkit.
04:55 Because writing is “an act of discovery,” Karam used the space of the design journal to set a path to see where the project may go.
05:04 Flower and Hayes explained that “the act of composing itself is a goal directed thinking process guided by the writers own growing network of goals”
05:13 And “writers create their own goals in two key ways. By generating both high level goals and supporting sub goals which embody the writer’s developing sense of purpose.”
05:24 In design journal two, Karam has itemized a set of goals. As you can see here on the left. As we see with his informal outline of background information, examples defining terms, proposing a claim- encounter argument.
05:40 He has also written a sub-goal for the structure of the argument to respond to the essay’s purpose. Thus, Karam was able to document his writing process via the design journal entries.
05:50 In particular, this journal demonstrated that Karam was showing rhetorical revision by using a multi-step writing process and being rhetorically flexible by A) adapting genre conventions and linguistic choices to compose persuasive artifacts and B) using invention strategies to craft situation-specific solutions for various composition tasks.
05:58 So, moving on to Karam’s third design journal, he continues to demonstrate several learning outcomes by moving through the design process.
06:21 Here, he begins to research the topic of his argumentative essay to inform his perspective on the matter. The objective of DJ-3 is to get a better understanding of the larger conversation for the problem or issue by researching it.
06:33 It is also an opportunity to read how others have written about the problem or issue. Once the student reads the research, they can document their responses in the journal, which will help shape their own writing.
06:45 They become more mindful of effective writing strategies. Mike Bunn, scholar and writer of the chapter, “How to Read Like a Writer,” in the Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, open access collection, asserts that “reading like a writer can help you understand how the process of writing is a series
07:01 of making choices and in doing so can help you recognize important decisions you might face and techniques you might want to use when working on your own writing.
07:11 Perhaps I should change the name and call this reading like an architect or reading like a car. You’re reading to see how something was constructed so that you can construct something similar yourself.”
07:25 Karam was thinking about argumentation strategies used in the article, but he was also looking for factual evidence. Karam chose a scholarly article written by a team of physicians for the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
07:37 He recognized the article’s use of logic, which he noted in his ideating list. The article provided a comprehensive understanding of laws that vary from state to state regarding the issue of a physician’s obligation to report intoxicated drivers.
07:52 Although the source is a bit out of date, Karam was able to gain a foundational understanding of the ethical circumstances that informed such laws.
07:59 More specifically, how the American Medical Association Medical Code of Ethics foremost retains the integrity of the physician-patient relationship. But also articulates the physician’s obligation to disclose information to authorities when other citizens may be in harm’s way.
08:15 By another patient and or their condition. He could use the article’s information to frame his stance on the issue. He explains “the article, however, is objective.
08:27 I have more freedom because I’m arguing for a position.” Karam knows that he is expected to use the information to build credibility.
08:34 He acknowledges that he will use the laws and guidelines to make inferences and conclusions. Karam explains that the format of the essay allows him to “say a lot more and so I can show that I’m more credible because I talk more in depth about whatever subject.”
08:49 He adds that building background among other details is expected in an argumentative essay, where he would not have had the time to “drone on and lose the audience” in a presentation format.
09:01 Like all students in the class, the third project could be any number of genres. They were not limited to an argumentative essay.
09:08 However, Karam chose this format because of its modal affordance. Although I may disagree that a presentation would not afford him the space to work through all the information that he felt compelled to include
09:19 to state his case, he nonetheless proved his rhetorical awareness- he was faced. Karam made choices about the project’s modality to do the work he desired-
09:27 the work he envisioned. It also illustrated and reified the ways the DFA prompted a recursive writing process. As Karam was building
09:35 his credibility through researching, he was thinking about the mode and genre that would do his argumentative work. Thus, he had to move back and forth between defining the project and gathering ideas about how to shape it.
09:49 As design journal three shows, Karam was a responsible researcher. He successfully achieved learning outcomes stated for the course. He analyzed a scholarly article and considered how the facts it presented would be incorporated for his purposes arguing a position on the issue.