Drawing on fieldwork, this article examines nursing students’ design and use of a patient health record during clinical simulations, where small teams of students provide nursing care for a robotic patient. The student-designed patient health record provides a compelling example of how simulation genres can both authentically coordinate action within a classroom simulation and support professional genre uptake. First, the range of rhetorical choices available to students in designing their simulation health records are discussed. Then, the article draws on an extended example of how student uptake of the patient health record within a clinical simulation emphasized its intertextual relationship to other genres, its role mediating social interactions with the patient and other providers, and its coordination of embodied actions. Connections to students’ experiences with professional genres are addressed throughout. The article concludes by considering initial implications of this research for disciplinary and professional writing courses.
AriailJ.SmithT. G. (2008). Concept analysis: Using an academic nursing genre for writing instruction in nursing. In HeifferonB.BrownS. (Eds.), Rhetoric of healthcare: Essays toward a new disciplinary inquiry (pp. 243-263). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
2.
BalzottiJ.RawlinsJ. (2016). Client-based pedagogy meets workplace simulation: Developing social processes in the Arisoph Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 59(2), 140-152.
3.
BawarshiA. S. (2003). Genre and the invention of the writer: Reconsidering the place of invention in Composition. Logan: Utah State University Press.
4.
BawarshiA. S. (2016a). Accounting for genre performances: Why uptake matters. In ArtemevaN.FreedmanA. (Eds.), Genre studies around the globe: Beyond the three traditions (pp. 186-206). Bloomington, IN: Inkshed.
5.
BawarshiA. S. (2016b). In between genres: Uptake, memory, and U.S. public discourse on Israel-Palestine. In ReiffM. J.BawarshiA. (Eds.), Genre and the performance of publics (pp. 43-59). Logan: Utah State University Press.
6.
BawarshiA. S.ReiffM. J. (2010). Genre: An Introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
7.
BeaufortA. (1999). Writing in the real world: Making the transition from school to work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8.
BerkenkotterC. (2001). Genre systems at work DSM-IV and rhetorical recontextualization in psychotherapy paperwork. Written Communication, 18(3), 326-349.
DevittA. J. (2004). Writing Genres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
11.
DevittA. J.BawarshiA. S.ReiffM. J. (2003). Materiality and genre in the study of discourse communities. College English, 65(5), 541-558.
12.
EmmonsK. (2009). Uptake and the biomedical subject. In BazermanC.BoniniA.FigueiredoD. (Eds.), Genre in a changing world: Perspectives on writing (pp. 134-157). Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
13.
EndresD.HessA.Senda-CookS.MiddletonM. (2016). In situ rhetoric: Intersections between qualitative inquiry, fieldwork, and rhetoric. Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, 16(3), 1-14.
14.
FisherD. (2007). CMS-based simulations in the writing classroom: Evoking genre through game play. Computers and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing, 24(2), 179-197.
15.
FreadmanA. (1994). Anyone for tennis? In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 43-66). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
16.
FreedmanA.AdamC.SmartG. (1994). Wearing suits to class: Simulating genres and simulations as genre. Written Communication, 11(2), 193-226.
17.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
18.
HaasC.WitteS. (2001). Writing as embodied practice: The case of engineering standards. Journal of Business and Technical Communications, 15(4), 413-457.
19.
HeifferonB. (2005). Writing in the health professions. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
20.
HertelJ.MillisB. J. (2002). Using simulations to promote learning in higher education: An introduction. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
21.
KnappP. (2002). Disembodied voices: The problem of context and form in theories of genre. In CoeR.LingardL.TeslinkoT. (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 275-296). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
22.
MagelssenS. (2014). Simming: Participatory performance and the making of meaning. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
23.
MatteoA. (2007). Rhetorical peaks, a video game for first-year writing. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 63-68). New York, NY: ACM.
24.
MillerC. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151-167.
25.
PrenticeR. (2013). Bodies in formation: An ethnography of anatomy and surgery education. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
26.
RaiC. (2016). Democracy’s lot: Rhetoric, publics, and the places of invention. Rhetoric, culture, and social critique. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
27.
RosenK. R. (2008). The history of medical simulation. Journal of Critical Care, 23, 157-166.
28.
RoundtreeA. K. (2014). Computer simulation, rhetoric, and scientific imagination. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books.
RussellD. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504-554.
31.
RussellD.FisherD. (2009). Online, multimedia case studies for professional education: Revisioning concepts of genre recognition. In GiltrowJ.SteinD. (Eds.), Genres in the internet: Issues in the theory of genre (pp. 163-192). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
32.
SchneiderB.AndreJ. (2005). University preparation for workplace writing: An exploratory study of the perception of students in three disciplines. Journal of Business Communication, 42(2), 195-218.
33.
SchryerC. F. (1994). The lab vs. the clinic: Sites of competing genres. In FreedmanA.MedwayP. (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 105-124). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
34.
ScottB.SegalJ. Z.KeranenL. (2013). The rhetorics of health and medicine: Inventional possibilities for scholarship and engaged practice. Poroi, 9(1), 17.
35.
SmartG.BrownN. (2002). Learning transfer or transforming learning? Student interns reinventing expert writing practices in the workplace. Technostyle, 18, 117-141.
36.
SpinuzziC. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
SwalesJ. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
WardleE. (2009). “Mutt genres” and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university?College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 765-789.
