Original:

 

One aspect of the discourse of social and natural sciences which is essential to successfully utilize and engage in the discourse is the “rhetorical framework” which Haas mentions throughout her text. Using a rhetorical mindset when engaging in a scientific discourse will help you not only see the text or information as simply facts, but comprehending the reasons and relationships which the texts has with other texts, as well as, the author. This is crucial for expressing full fluency in a scientific discourse. Haas explains rhetoric framework as “when readers approach a discourse situation, they presumably have some knowledge, and background of author and intended readers” (Haas 48). When Haas says this she is saying that the rhetorical framework is engaging with the discourse with the mindset of having an understanding of why the author used certain terminology as well as structure. This will allow the reader to better understand the relationships with the facts and the way they are presented. Similarly The Gee refers to this theory indirectly when he discusses the relationship portion of the building tasks. However, in this situation the student or other researcher who is engaging in a discourse of social and natural sciences is the one representing and expressing the relationship in their literature. In  addition, Gee discusses a similar idea which is as he calls it metaknowledge. This is extremely analogous when comparing the two writings. One instance where this is observed is when Gee states that “Metaknowledge is liberation and power, because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing (Gee 13). Although Gee was using the phrase in a slightly different setting the relationship between the two ideas is very apparent. Metaknowledge is the analyze a discourse and manipulate it in order to suit the individual’s needs, as well as, having a knowledge of a prior discourse. This translates well to Haas’ idea that when engaging in the text one should already know why and for what purpose the author structured the text the way they did as why it is relevant.

 

Revised:

 

One aspect of the discourse of social and natural sciences which is essential to successfully utilize and engage in the discourse is the “rhetorical framework” which Haas mentions throughout her text. Using a rhetorical mindset when engaging in a scientific discourse will help you not only see the text or information as simply facts, but comprehending the reasons and relationships which the texts has with other texts, as well as, the author. This is crucial for expressing full fluency in a scientific discourse. Haas explains rhetoric framework as “when readers approach a discourse situation, they presumably have some knowledge, and background of author and intended readers” (48). When Haas says this she is saying that the rhetorical framework is engaging with the discourse with the mindset of having an understanding of why the author used certain terminology as well as structure. This will allow the reader to better understand the relationships with the facts and the way they are presented. Similarly Gee refers to this theory indirectly when he discusses the relationship portion of the building tasks. Inn Gee’s text he describes the relationship concept as expressing your (the author) connection to the text. You can use “rhetorical framework” as a tool to help you express your relationship with the text. However, in this situation the student or other researcher who is engaging in a discourse of social and natural sciences is the one representing and expressing the relationship in their literature. In  addition, Gee discusses a similar idea which is as he calls it metaknowledge. This is extremely analogous when comparing the two writings. One instance where this is observed is when Gee states that “Metaknowledge is liberation and power, because it leads to the ability to manipulate, to analyze, to resist while advancing (Gee 13). Although Gee was using the phrase in a slightly different setting the relationship between the two ideas is very apparent. Metaknowledge is the analyze a discourse and manipulate it in order to suit the individual’s needs, as well as, having a knowledge of a prior discourse. This translates well to Haas’ idea that when engaging in the text one should already know why and for what purpose the author structured the text the way they did as why it is relevant.

ENG101I