Science paper

NSCI 306—Fall 2019

Writing Project #1 1

Writing Project #1

Language, Writing, and Science

Background

So far this quarter, we (will) have explored and discussed the definition(s) of science (Orwell and

Sagan), the place of language and writing in science (Goldbort, and Gopen & Swan) and how

language can be seen as both ideology and a formative technology (Postman). We have also

learned the importance of a reader-centered method of writing (Hyland, Goldbort and Gopen &

Swan) and have discussed generally the need for careful writing and language use in scientific

communication. For our purposes, Postman, Goldbort, Hyland, and Gopen & Swan constitute

what I call “writing theory” or “composition theory.”

This project asks you to more fully explore the relationships between language, writing, and

science by applying this “writing theory” in a critique of a science-related article (see “The

Assignment” section for which article). Your critique should focus on the writing in the article

(not the science or the argument) and should draw on Gopen & Swan and at least two other

applicable course readings.

The Assignment

Incorporating quotes and concepts from at least three of our “writing theory” course readings this

quarter (Gopen & Swan + 2 others), write a critique of one of the following:

• Martin’s 1991 article “The Egg and The Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles”

• Wakefield, et al.’s 1998 (retracted 2010) article “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.”

Your critique should include the following elements, though not necessarily in this order. You

will need to determine the most effective organization of these elements for your audience. (See

“Audience” section.)

• a discussion of the principles of effective scientific writing,

• a discussion of the importance of careful language use and writing in science,

• A brief summary of your chosen article

• A clear, identifiable argument about whether or not your chosen article is effectively written. An example of how you might state this: “An examination of [author’s year

article] will show that the article is/is not effectively written.”

• Application of the principles of effective science writing to your chosen article. Focus on the writing in the article, not the argument, the science, or the “aftermath” of the article.

o For example, if the author “violates” a principle, discuss which one and show, with specific examples from the actual text of the article, how the principle was

violated

o Or, if the article follows (a) principle(s) of effective writing, showcase that as well. Remember to use specific details from your chosen article.

• A clear conclusion that ties everything together and makes some final points about the topics you have covered. “As can be seen _____________.”

NSCI 306—Fall 2019

Writing Project #1 2

Your critique should contain direct quotes/paraphrases from your chosen “writing theory” and

from the article you are critiquing. You should use more than one quote per reading. No other

outside sources are required, but you are welcome to find and use other relevant sources as

desired.

Project/Formatting Requirements

• Final draft should be: Minimum 1000 words. Maximum 2000. (Yes, this is possible.)

• 12-point Times New Roman or Arial font; 1-inch margins all around, double spaced

• APA format, Title Page, and Reference Page. No Abstract required for this assignment. o The Title Page and Reference Page do not count toward your overall word count.

Audience: Write for someone who is generally educated and knows the basics of human

reproduction and anatomy (Martin) or what vaccines and autism are (Wakefield) and is

interested in science writing. However, your audience has not participated in this class and is not

aware of our discussions to this point. Avoid saying “In my NSCI 306 class” or anything like

that. Remember, you are arguing about the effectiveness of the writing in your chosen article;

you are not taking issue with the argument in the article.

Timeline→ Follow Course Calendar for other course assignments

Thursday, 9/26/19: Assignment introduced

• Read Assignment Sheet

• Take notes as you continue to with the assigned readings until rough draft is due.

• Read the Sample Essays on Blackboard

• View the WP #1 Video Tuesday, 10/8/19: WP #1 Rough Draft due by 11:30 p.m. via Turnitin

• Go to WP #1 on Blackboard. Select “WP #1 Rough” submission link (this will be a Turnitin link)

o Submission link also available under Week #3 Module

• If you do not submit by the deadline, you will not be able to participate in Workshop

• Review Writing Workshop #1 Procedures (posted in Writing Project #1 Folder)

• Thursday, 10/10/19: WP #1 Workshop (via Turnitin PeerMark) due by 11:30 p.m.

• Read and give feedback on assigned PeerMark draft(s) Thursday, 10/17/19: Project #1 Final Draft due by 11:30 p.m. to Blackboard.

• Go to Writing Project #1 and select “WP #1 Final” submission link (Turnitin link) o Submission link also available under Week #4 Module

• Follow calendar for all other assignments.

Assessment

This Project is worth 175 points and will be reflected as one grade on Blackboard. However, the

grade is broken down as follows:

20 points: Draft #1/Workshop Participation. Must submit draft and PeerMark feedback on time.

155 points: Final Draft. Must be submitted on time and to the proper submission link.

NSCI 306—Fall 2019

Writing Project #1 3

Review the Assessment Policy in the syllabus and the Grading Criteria handout on Blackboard

for more information on how you will be graded. Also review the Late Work policy in the

syllabus as needed.

What Professor Taylor is looking for in this paper:

• A clear, well-reasoned argument that is supportable and supported by the selected readings.

• Clear, logical connections and transitions between paragraphs, even if you use headings (not required).

• Logical order of ideas/main points.

• Specific, relevant passages from chosen reading(s) that are clearly explained and appropriately used to help set up/support claims made in the paper.

• An introduction that sufficiently sets up the project

• A conclusion that does more than summarize the paper. The conclusion should offer a call to action, or final thoughts for the reader to think about.

• Clear and clean prose—few/minor grammar or mechanics errors. Be sure to proofread.

• Adherence to APA style and format. Do your best.