Welcome to Week 8! After this week, we will officially be halfway done with the semester. Yay! This week is also the first week of Unit 3, in which we will be studying writing in/about the natural sciences. For an overview of the entire unit, click here.
We will not have Optional Zoom Class on Monday (10/12), because it is a holiday. Instead, optional Zoom class will be Wednesday, 10/14 at 10:50am. CUNY has designated this Wednesday as a “CUNY Monday,” where we are supposed to follow the Monday class schedule.
Please also fill out the peer review survey, to prepare for next week.
General Content Warning
This week, the readings are going to mostly be about the coronavirus. Generally, I take the position that class shouldn’t force you to spend more time thinking about super stressful/traumatic topics, that class should give you an opportunity for escape. However, it seems ridiculous to talk about science writing without talking about the virus, since virus news is the main kind of science writing most people have been reading or hearing about for months.
If you would prefer to avoid reading about the virus for class, please look at these instead:
Article 1
TED Talk (with transcript if you prefer to read)
Due Dates
Annotations + Response Comments to the Podcast due Thursday, 10/15 (so you have several days to think about the main activity for the week)
Data Visualization Activity due Sunday, October 18
No late penalty for either one, I just recommend you do the reading/listening/annotations early in order to be prepared for the activity.
A Very Short History of Science Writing
Just as “humanities” is a broad term with blurry edges (for example, why is gender studies considered humanities and not social science?), “natural science” is also not a solid category, but is generally counterposed with social science. Physics and chemistry seem like definitely natural science, as does biology, but what about a psychologist or a neuroscientist? Are they natural science, since they deal with brains and do scientific experiments, or are they social science, since they deal with people? So, with academic disciplines and with writing genres, there are no hard and fast rules that are true 100% of the time.
However, disciplines within the category of “natural science” tend to have similar writing styles/expectations. There are a couple of reasons for this.
- Scientific writing in the English language essentially began in the 1660s— nearly 400 years ago– when The Royal Society formed in England. They were essentially a club for upper class English scientists to get together and talk about science/do experiments every week. The Royal Society started the first science journals written in English. All scholarly journals written in English since then are influenced by those early journals, so writing expectations are similar.
- “Science” didn’t use to be as split up by subject area as it is now. In fact, choosing a major in college wasn’t even a thing until the late 1800s. So, what we now know as separate areas of study (biology, physics, chemistry) didn’t used to be very separate at all– so of course their genres and writing expectations are similar. The most prestigious scientific journals of today also publish research from a variety of subject areas, so all of those researchers are writing for the same set of editorial expectations.
- Shared values– the goal of the scientific method is to discover objective, Definitely True knowledge, that other scientists can verify by repeating the experiment. That doesn’t always happen, but that’s the goal. So, scientific genres evolved over time that would help scientists communicate with each other with these goals in mind– very detailed but very direct writing, for example, and clearly-labeled subsections instead of paragraphs that all flow directly into one another (like in the humanities).
Goals for This Week
- Learn to identify multiple genre conventions of scientific communication
- Learn to analyze the rhetorical dimensions of how scientific information is presented
- Apply the skills and knowledge above to evaluate the scientific communication you encounter in your daily life
Overview of Tasks
- Write your way into the week
- Listen to a podcast episode
- Read a fake scientific study and my annotations/commentary on that study
- View some examples of Bad/Misleading Graphs and Charts
- Annotate and/or comment on the materials in Steps 2-4
- Create your own scientific communication
- Fill out the Peer Review Survey
Detailed Instructions
Step 1: Write Your Way Into the Week
Here are your thinking questions for this week! Please spend 5-10 minutes freewriting about them (or ignoring them and freewriting more generally), which you can then share with me if you wish or keep to yourself. If you don’t want to write, please at least read the questions and think about them!
- If you see a scientific claim in the news or on social media, how do you determine whether or not it is true? What information or signs do you look for to indicate if it is trustworthy or not?
- When teachers say to use “scholarly sources” or “peer-reviewed sources,” what does that mean? Why is a scholarly or peer-reviewed source more trustworthy?
Step 2: Listen to a Podcast Episode
Click here to access the episode. You can also download it or stream on other podcast platforms if you prefer.
If you are not able to listen to a podcast episode, I will provide some links to articles covering similar information that you can read instead.
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Step 3: Read/Skim a Fake Scientific Study and Read My Commentary On It
This study was posted online in the spring and forcibly removed almost immediately because it contains so much misinformation. However, it is archived and can still be read. It has been extensively debunked online. The commentary is the post I wrote about it for my students during the spring. I repeat: THE CONCLUSIONS OF THIS STUDY ARE FALSE.
Step 4: View Some Graphs and Charts
Bad/Misleading Virus-Related Charts
Chart about Zika virus displayed on NBC
Some Misleading Charts About Coronavirus
How Different Kinds of Election Maps Imply Different Things— all of these are based on truthful data, but how you choose to display the data says different things!
Different Ways of Mapping Election Results
“United States of Apathy” map
**I don’t think this actually shows voter apathy, I think it shows a combination of voter suppression/difficulty voting + people who thought neither Trump nor Clinton was going to help them, so why bother picking between them**
Step 5: Annotate/Comment
From what you read/listened to/looked at, please leave annotations on Hypothes.is OR a comment on this post that respond to the following questions:
- How did the materials for this week change you thinking about data and scientific communication? What did you learn?
- If you see a scientific claim in the news or on social media, either in words or as a visual, how do you determine whether or not it is true? What information or signs do you look for to indicate if it is trustworthy or not?
Step 6: Data Visualization Activity
- Find an existing data visualization, similar to the examples I provided above.
- Examine it closely, and analyze what information is communicated, and what information is hidden or left out. You may need to look at the fine print on data collection if you can find it. (For another coronavirus example, a low total confirmed case count doesn’t mean very much if very few people are able to get tested.)
- Write out your analysis (can just be bullet points, or paragraphs)
- Then either create or describe in writing another way to visualize the same data that communicates something else. If you want to make your own graph or chart, any spreadsheet program (like Google Sheets) will allow you to do that.
Grading
- Annotations/Podcast Commentary (Week 8) — 2 pts, completion
- Data Visualization Activity (Week 8) — 2 pts, completion


