UWP 104E: Writing in the Professions: Science

 Assignments

1. In-Class Exercises, Workshops, Discussions (20%)–Because science writing, including the writing in this course, is collaborative, your full, active, cooperative participation in the daily work of the course is key to your success. 20% of course credit (roughly 1% of final grade for each day’s in-class performance). I will rate your daily participation either satisfactory (full, active participation during the entire class period, as described under Evaluation Standards on the Syllabus) or less than satisfactory.

*Any absence, for whatever reason, will mean that you cannot earn this daily 1% toward the final grade. This daily work cannot be made up later.

*Lateness to class will mean that you can’t earn more than .5% credit for that day. Remember: credit can only be earned for work performed during the class period.

2. Writing and Science: Your History (5%)

Purposes of the Assignment: As we begin this course, I’d like you to think with focus on two ideas: (1) your development as a writer and (2) the relationship between your growing ability to write and your growing interest in science. Your writing about these two kinds of development–your history as writer and scientist–should help you understand this relationship, whatever it may be, better. It will also let me get to know you better as thinker and writer, and so that is one of the purposes of this assignment, too.

This task isn’t meant to be easy, but I hope it is enjoyable. Unless people can identify key moments in their development, they often don’t register their abilities as growing (consider how often people just regard other people’s carefully-built skills as “gifts,” as if they had them all along). Because we grow gradually, we’re often not aware of the process. So this task of examination will go against commonplace thinking, but it will, I hope, be more systematic, and therefore useful.

You may detect bias in the assignment: that I am assuming a positive correlation between “writing” and “science.” You will note in the early chapters of the Porush text that he provides numerous examples to support such a correlation, but the goal of this assignment is for you to observe and recall the changing status of that relationship in your own experience, wherever that has led.

Audiences: All writing that is meant for another person to read is written for at least two readers: the writer her- or himself and the “other.” You are writing this essay both for yourself–to help you understand your development through time and experience–and for me. While you will have your own goals for the writing, you should keep in mind that I, as a reader, lack your knowledge of context–so you’ll have to fill in more details for me. It may also be relevant for you to know that one of my research fields is writing development and the teaching of writing, so I have professional reasons for being interested in what you write.

Format: For this specific assignment, feel free to present it in a comfortable form for you. I’m less interested in the order in which you present the information than in your answering a few thematic questions in the course of your writing:

(1) What do you see as the ways in which writing relates to your work and interests as a student and scientist? How does writing either help or hinder that work? Please give one or more examples.

(2) Looking back, do you see a relationship between your growth as writer and as science student? Has one had bearing on the other? Or do they seem to have developed along different, even contrary, paths? Can you recall specific moments of growth (“breakthroughs”)?

(3) When you regard your future and your goals, what do you see as key challenges for you as writer and as scientist? Are these challenges related? If so, how? What roles do you see science and writing playing in your ideal future?

Please give your essay a title: one that captures something of a key idea that you are trying to get across in your essay.

Process: This is one assignment that you won’t be formally writing in drafts, with a peer workshop to provide you feedback before revision. Your “history essay” will be submitted to Smartsite online. Your submitted essay should contain 750-1000 words (but remember my policy on word counts!).

As with all thoughtful writing, I strongly suggest your using the week between the Intro of the Assignment and the submission time to do some “thinkwriting”–brainstorming, outlining, notemaking, whatever works for you–to get your ideas out and see how they look to you, then going back to the writing later with a fresh eye. If you’d like to talk with me about your draft during my office hours, please let me know by email when you will be coming.

3. Comparative Document Analysis (20%)–We will work on comparative analysis of three documents on the same issue, phenomenon, or event from science-related publications. These documents may include one or more that you are considering citing in your Team Research Review, but they do not have to be. Each member of the team must choose different documents for this comparison.

My aim in this assignment is to increase your attentiveness to both the overt and the subtle differences among documents concerning the “same” event, issue, or phenomenon, as produced in different writing situations. Whether as producer or consumer, you need to be aware of these differences in building your own informed perspectives on the issues, as well as in creating documents for different types of readers.

Your audience for the analysis will be the other members of the class and the instructor; that is, we are interested readers, but we probably don’t know too much about the issue or event you choose to analyze, so your summary and analysis will give us new knowledge.

One of the three documents you choose must be an article from ONE of the following: (a) a national general interest online news source (such as http://www.washingtonpost.com); (b) a print general news publication, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, or Newsweek; or (c). a print or online science-related periodical such as Wired, Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, Discover, or The Smithsonian. The audience for such publications is usually not specialized in the subject matter of the article. I must approve your source.

The second of these documents must be from a special-interest website or blog meant for specialists in the subject of the research; for example, a technical report written for scholars or fellow scientists/specialists in an agency, lab, university, or professional society. We will practice in class using databases that index print and electronic materials on science topics. I must approve your source.

The third of these documents must be an article on the topic from a peer-reviewed science journal. Again, I must approve your source.

We will develop in class questions to ask about the three documents by which to do a well-informed comparison. Key areas of comparison will be purposes and intended audiences. To illuminate these key analytical categories, we will also explore these categories: kinds of evidence, organization, writing style and tone, and graphic presentation. NOTE: Of the six analytical categories, purposes and audiences are by far the most important. Use data from the other four categories: organization, types of evidence, style/tone, and graphic presentation, to support your claims about purposes and audiences, as needed.

Call for Proposals (CFP): Your process for doing this Comparative Document Analysis will begin with my approval of your proposal of the topic and of the 3 pieces you wish to compare. The proposal must include

(1) your brief description of the topic your documents concern and why you think this topic is suitable for this project (no more than 150 words)

(2) for each of the 3 pieces, the title of the piece, the name of the publication or the URL of the websource; date, author (if given), number of words, and where you located the piece (for example, in a journal, on a different website, or in a database)

(3) why each of these pieces suits this assignment (no more than 50 words per article)

Write no more than 500 words in this proposal. Do not include the articles as attachments.

Submit the proposal in the designated Forum on Smartsite. Do not send it as an attachment.

Format of completed analysis (both first draft and revised draft):

Your completed analysis will consist of three main sections:

A. Summary of the Issue/Event/Phenomenon–In 500 well-chosen words, you will summarize the content of the issue/event for class members and the instructor, using the three documents as your sources. Since the documents will more than likely agree on many of the details, summarizing should not be difficult. However, where the documents differ on basic information, you’ll need accurately to state these differences in your summary.

B. Assessment of the Important Differences among the Documents–In 1000 well-chosen words, you will characterize each of the three pieces in turn in regard to each analytical category. For each category, you need to highlight differences among the three pieces. Again, of the six analytical categories, purposes and audiences are by far the most important. Use data from the other four categories: organization, types of evidence, style/tone, and graphic presentation, to support your claims about purposes and audiences, as needed.

C. Judgment of Strengths and Weaknesses–What is the greatest strength of each document? What might be improved? In 600 well-chosen words (roughly 200 for each document), describe the standout strength and weakness of each piece. Which of the three articles does the best job of achieving its purposes for its intended readers? Why?

Procedure: Drafts and revised drafts should be submitted in class on paper using the above format and should be roughly 2000 words. Your revised drafts must be followed by

* a one-page “change” memo that describes and justifies the changes in the revised draft (see just below for more info on the “change memo”)
* one copy of the first draft (with annotations by peer reviewers)
* filled-in critique sheets from peer reviewers
* an Appendix that includes photocopies of the compared documents.

Change Memo: The change memo you’ll include with your revised draft packet should be no longer than one page and should account for the changes you’ve made in your draft–and why you’ve made them. For example,  if your peer reviewers have suggested particular changes and you’ve followed their advice, describe what you’ve done. Conversely, if your peer reviewers have suggested a change and you decided not to follow their advice, say why. One purpose of the change memo is to increase your awareness of your process of revision and your process of editing. It should help your decision-making process.

Documentation style: I recommend American Psychological Assocation (APA) style or Council of Sciences Editors (CSE) style. Please apply that style consistently. This style should be used both for “in-text” citations and for your list of sources at the end of the analysis.

 

4. Team Research Review (25%)–From Week 2 onward, we will be developing aspects of a three-person project that will be based on your investigation of books, articles, and other pertinent resources (e.g., interviews) in a area of scientific inquiry of interest to you and your teammates. Your investigation will lead your team to an understanding of the current state of knowledge and theory in this area of scientific inquiry. You and your teammates will choose the subject of the investigation, with my approval. In class, we will discuss methods, materials, and presentation of the projects.

Chapters of WS will be assigned and adapted to help you develop the research review and evaluate the materials you will be studying. Aspects of the project include the project research proposal, a series of informal progress memos sent to a designated Forum on Smartsite, and the full report of the research.

A separate assignment (10%) will be a 12-minute oral/visual presentation by each group to the class (in the designated final exam period).

A second separate assignment (20%) will be an individually-written “popular” or “non-specialist” version of your research. See the description of that assignment for details.

Purposes of the Team Research Review: I intend this project to provide guided practice in designing and revising a review of scientific literature, one of the most common genres in scientific research. Not original research in itself, the research review is an integral part of the reports of original research. It is also a recognized genre of the scientific research enterprise, as it brings scientists up to date on the current state of knowledge in an area of inquiry.

The project will also give you guided practice in collaborative research and writing. Learning to collaborate is essential to research.

Audience: Although the actual readers in this context will be the instructor and the rest of the class, you should imagine as your principal readers other scientists with a deep interest in the area of inquiry you choose–in other words, people who would regularly read the “peer-reviewed” journals that you will be reading for this project. For example, if the journals you are reading for this project expect readers to know certain acronyms or equations, you may also expect your imagined reader to know them.

Format of the Team Research Review: The research review itself will consist of five main parts, appropriately headed in the text; these parts should be presented in the following order:

(1) an abstract of the review (roughly 200 words) (HINT: the abstract is usually written after the report is complete); following the abstract, add a few keywords, as if the review were going to be indexed in a research journal

(2) an introduction to the subject of the inquiry, including some history of interest in the topic and why people are so interested in it now (in other words, why should scientists pay attention to this inquiry?)

(3) the major changes in theory related to this inquiry and a summary of the experiments that have brought about these changes

(4) a description of the most important experiments that have led to the present state of theory related to the inquiry

(5) your conclusion: the current state of theory related to this inquiry and some of the important questions that remain.

(6) Plus a “Works Cited” page in either APA or CSE style.

Length: The entire revised, carefully-edited version of the Team Research Review should include roughly 5000 words (remember my policy!), the words appropriately apportioned in the several sections.

Title Page: Include a separate title page with a suitable title (see WS for advice on titles), date, names of team members, and course information

Graphic Elements: At appropriate places in your report you should include such graphic elements as tables, graphs, drawings, photos, etc. Consult WS, Ch. 13, regarding appropriate, effective, and correct uses of visual material.

Appearance of Final Report

A positive visual impression means that the reader is more likely to read a report of any kind. Looking good won’t hide poor writing and thinking–but looking sloppy or “thrown together” often means that even the best writing and thinking will be ignored. I won’t dictate appearance–surprise me and your classmates in a good way, impressing us with your creativity and style, even as you earn our respect for the quality and organization of your writing.

“Seamless” Style

Well-written collaborative reports by scientists appear “seamless”; that is, they do not show to a reader where one writer ends and another begins. While your team should strive to have each member contribute roughly equally to the writing of the research review, the final draft must not show the rough edges and stylistic differences. Teams usually accomplish this seamlessness by putting one writer in charge of final formatting and proofreading, and then requiring all members to check the edited/formatted draft for accuracy and correctness.

Due Dates of Each Phase of the Project

Due dates are noted in the syllabus. Remember that credit for the entire project is contingent on full, active, and cooperative participation in all phases.

Evaluation Criteria

My criteria for evaluating the written projects are based on the principles of effective scientific writing detailed in the pertinent chapters of WS and in our class discussions. In addition, I will grade on the appearance of the final report, as described above, and on how well each team member meets deadlines and cooperates in the team venture.

Grading Procedure

These projects will receive a group grade; thus, the grade earned by the team will be the grade earned by each individual on the team. Nevertheless, one element of the final report will be an addendum showing the team’s self-assessment of each person’s contribution, and I will take the liberty of adjusting individual credit, if necessary.Team members who contribute little (this happens rarely, but it does happen) will receive significantly less credit.

 

**********************************************************************************

CRITIQUE FORM FOR PEER REVIEW OF TEAM RESEARCH REVIEW DRAFTS
JUNE 1, 2016

Name of Team You are Reviewing______________________________

Names of Reviewers_____________________________________________

CUT AND PASTE THIS FORM (ONE PER TEAM) INTO AN EMAIL OR WORD DOC TO SEND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM WHOSE DRAFT YOU REVIEWED.

FIRST, COMMENT ON THE DRAFT ITSELF, THEN FILL OUT THIS FORM AND SEND.

*****************************************************************************************************
ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS

How does the abstract convey the importance of the topic and summarize each section of the report? Will it be engaging to researchers in this field? (Might it also be readable by non-specialists wth related scientific interests?)  Would the keywords be useful to researchers looking for this review?

INTRODUCTION

How des the Intro section engage the reader and express the key issues and problems? How does it set up the rest of the report? Does it adequately give a sense of the history of interest in this inquiry and the problems the inquiry addresses?  Improvements suggested?

CHANGES IN THEORY

How does this section explore changes in theory and attitudes to these issues and WHY each change has occurred? Does it give a good summary of the history of research and note the major milestone of research progress?  Improvements suggested?

MOST IMPORTANT EXPERIMENTS

How does this section describe each of the most important 2-4 experiments/studies? Does it show the importance of each? It should summarize problems addressed, methods, findings, and conclusions from each. Improvements?

CURRENT STATE OF THEORY AND QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN

How does the section make the current state of theory seem reasonable, based on the previous sections? Is the description of the current state clear? Do the remaining questions for research seem reasonable and thorough?  Are there issues or questions you would add?

WORKS CITED

Check all citations in the text and noted in the list. Are they accurate and thorough in either APA or CSE? Suggested additions?

SEAMLESS STYLE

Is the entire essay coherent in logic and style? How might it be improved?

VISUALS

Comment on the visuals. Are they appropriate? Could more be added? All visual must be credited to their sources and have captions and labels (e.g., Table 1, Figure 1, etc.)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO TEAM ON QUESTIONS THEY ASKED

COMMENT IN THE DRAFT ON ANY ERRORS OR TYPOS IN PUNCTUATION AND SYNTAX

WHAT HAVE THE WRITERS DONE PARTICULARLY WELL IN THIS DRAFT?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CAREFUL READING AND HELPFUL COMMENTS.

********************************************************************

5. Popular Science Project (20%)–This assignmsnt, to be written by each individual, will rely on the research you will do as part of the Team Research Review. It will build on the analytical and reading skills you will develop in the Comparative Document Analysis.

For this assignment, you will present or apply information from your research in crafting an appropriate document for a non-specialist audience. The writing of science for “popular” or “non-specialist” readers encompasses a wide range of genres, from newspaper feature stories to “how to” articles to magazine profiles of scientists to brochures for public advocacy, and on and on. The University Writing Program, for example, has featured a range of well-known science writers in its series Conversations with Writers; topics have ranged from bioengineering to world hunger policy to the structure of the mind to sexual performance to medicine in impoverished countries.

Though you may not yet think of yourself as a science writer for a wider public, all scientists who want funds to carry on their research or who just have the basic goal of finding someone to listen must at times write to non-specialists. Indeed, the more specialized your research becomes, the fewer will be the number of people who can easily understand what you are doing and the greater will become your audience of “non specialists.”

For this assignment, you may choose to write any kind of document that serves a purpose you can readily define for an audience that you can readily define (for example, “an essay for the Aggie that can convince UCD students to buy a special kind of bike tire made by a new process” or “a YouTube video that shows California vintners a better way to trim Chardonnay vines” or “a new Facebook page that helps Norwegian Forest cat owners understand how their pets have adapted–and not adapted–to Northern California”).

I see this assignment as encouraging your creativity, while testing your ability to help non-specialists understand, appreciate, and use science.

Constraints on This Writing: Rather than give you a format for this assignment–the possible formats are too varied–I’ll ask you to keep in mind that you’ll have only 10-12 days from the Proposal for this project to the in-class workshop on drafts. So you shouldn’t try to be too ambitious (that video on Chardonnay may have to wait, unless you already do “how to” videos). But if you have a clever idea that you want to try, just propose it and see what happens.

Topic: The topic of your “popular” piece should be related to your team review project and use some of the information you have discovered in your reading. If you really have a good idea for a different topic for your popular science piece, speak to me about it and convince me to let you use it.

Visual elements: Include in your writing at least one visual element–a table, a graph, a chart, a captioned photo, etc.–that helps to get your ideas across clearly and vividly.

Length: Words should be kept to 1500 or so; the format and genre you choose will help to determine number of words.

Accompanying explanation: Your draft and revised draft should be accompanied by a 500-word explanation of your essay (or brochure, webpage, etc.) that describes the purposes, the intended audiences, and the choices of media and language you made in designing and crafting this piece of “popular” science writing.

Proposal due on Smartsite team forum at time and date on the course schedule:

• Maximum of 400 words
• Include tentative title.
• Describe your target audience as clearly as possible.
• Describe the purposes of your document as clearly as possible.
• Describe the genre and format you envision, plus graphic elements you envision and tools you will use.
• NOTE: If you are trying to convince me to let you use a topic distinct from the topic of your team research review, use this proposal to make your case. I’ll be looking to see why you are motivated by this topic and why you have sufficient background and expertise in this subject to write about it well.

 

6. Oral/Visual Presentation of Team Research (10%)–For the final exam, each team will prepare a 12-minute presentation that highlights and summarizes the team research project.

NOTE: The final is scheduled from 3:30 to 5:30 PM on W, Dec. 12, in Olson 241. If I can reserve the room from 3 PM (or earlier) on, your team may quickly do a pre-presentation check of the technology you plan to use.

Goal: To convey to the class vividly and professionally

(1) the theoretical and experimental background of the research that you have studied in this review of the literature

(2) the most important experiments that have led to the present state of the inquiry

(3) the current state of theory on the inquiry

(4) some of the important questions that remain

and (5) how this review has furthered your knowledge in areas of interest to each of you.

This will be a lot of ground to cover in 12 minutes (I will rigidly enforce the time limit–nothing more annoys conference goers than speakers who go over their time). You will need to edit ruthlessly the mass of information in your written report in order to pick out the key ideas, methods, and results that will get across to your audience the most useful information in the most memorable fashion.

Remember that your audience is non-specialists: we are interested in science and scientific method, but not likely to carry out your experiments or be fascinated by the intricacies you are. Your challenge is to discern what in your inquiry will most interest non-specialists and feel most relevant to them.

Media for Presentation: All the technical resources of the Olson computer lab plus any other performance media you can import. As long as you can make the technology work smoothly–and safely!–whatever you come up with will be fine. Video, audio, PowerPoint, websites, whiteboard, posters, handouts, skits, etc., are among presentation tools you may use.

Content Resources: Documents, websites, interviews, observations, etc.–anything you found useful toward writing the Team Research Review.

Criteria:

1. Each member of the team should contribute equally to the success of the presentation. Each should speak roughly equally. Each should strive to follow the “tips” we will have discussed.

2. All parts of the goal described above need to be achieved and each of the key items addressed, using appropriately selected items from the content resources.

3. Visually and aurally, the presentation should support and make emphatic and memorable the points your team is making about the research theme. Use of technology should be appropriate to the persuasive task and not just used for its own sake. (Remember, flashy is not always effective.) Nevertheless, I’ll be looking for some appropriate use of the varied tools of the lab and other performance tools you think will help achieve your goal.

4. Proofread all presentation materials carefully. Misspellings and other errors on PowerPoint slides hurt your credibility.