The natural sciences are often viewed as disciplines based on cold, hard fact, in contrast to the humanities which appear to be based on subjective opinion. In this unit we will challenge this view by examining controversy in the scientific community. What is up for debate in the natural sciences? Are these disciplines really as factual and as rational as popular perception would have them to be?
In this unit you will enter into a current scientific controversy, researching and evaluating evidence and learning how to shape that evidence into a focused and powerful argument. Each student will choose an editorial from a current issue of the scientific journal Nature, working to understand that author’s argument and develop your own counter-argument. You can find a tutorial for accessingNature here (http://lupton105032.blogspot.com/2012/09/accessing-nature-revised.html), though we will also spend time in class going over this information and working together to choose an appropriate article.
When an assignment asks you to summarize, explicate, or respond to another author’s work, the first step is to understand that work thoroughly and completely. The first few feeder assignments will guide you through that process, while the latter feeder assignments will help you to perform your own research, collate and evaluate this information, and use it to construct a powerful counter-argument to your original author’s claim.
Feeder 1.1: Background Research
After choosing a recent editorial from Nature, you may be at a loss as to how you will construct a powerful counter-argument; after all, these editorials are written by professional, accomplished authors who know how to make their position seem valid and logical. The first thing we want to do is try to move past the author’s tight, focused argument and begin to see the larger constellation of information and opinions on the topic at hand.
For your first feeder assignment, identify a list of at least 4 key terms from your editorial. These terms might include: unfamiliar scientific concepts; the names of people, organizations, or legislation pertinent to the topic; dates or key events relating to the topic. Most of these terms will probably be mentioned in your Nature editorial, but if you find key terms that the author has overlooked or excluded you can include these as well. For each term, write a concise, one-paragraph explanation of the term and its significance in clear, straightforward language and include a list of at least two links to reliable sources that explain the topic further, along with a short, 1-2 sentence explanation of the source and its significance. An example entry might look like this:
BP Deepwater Horizon
Deepwater Horizon was an offshore oil rig owned by BP (British Petroleum) and designed to extract oil from the ocean floor, operating at depths of up to 8,000 feet. The rig was stationed in the Gulf of Mexico, about 41 miles off the Louisiana coast. On April 20, 2010, the well exploded, killing 11 men working on the rig’s platform, and sent oil spilling directly into the Gulf. The spill continued for three months, sending 4.9 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, constituting the largest accidental marine spill in the history of the petroleum industry. The spill caused extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats throughout the Gulf Coast as well as a significant disruption in fishing and tourism industries throughout the region.
Final investigative report on the Deepwater Horizon spill by The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement /U.S. Coast Guard Joint Investigation Team. The report attributes the accident to defective cement used in the well’s construction, laying most of the blame for the accident on BP (the well’s owner), Transocean (the contractor who operated the well), and Halliburton (the company who made the faulty cement mixture).
An article from the magazine Scientific American explaining that the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill may be felt for decades. These effects include the displacement of native species, the promotion of toxins that can cause cancer and inhibit reproduction in wildlife, and the dispersal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that can sicken plants, fish, and even humans.
Place your final document in a Google Doc, share it with my gmail address, and bring it to class.
Feeder 1.2: Annotated Bibliography
The research you performed for your Feeder 1.1 assignment constituted general background research on your topic, but for this feeder assignment we will move toward analyzing the arguments that people have put forth about your issue. For Feeder 1.2, you will compose an annotated bibliography of at least five sources relating to your topic. While the sources you cited in Feeder 1.1 might have included general reference works, the works you cite for Feeder 1.2 should not only be reliable, but they should also be argumentative, i.e. they should make a substantive claim about your topic. The first source on your annotated bibliography should be the article from Nature that you chose before we started Feeder 1.1.
For each entry in your annotated bibliography, begin by constructing a citation of the source based on your blog's citation guidelines that you developed in class. Underneath this citation, write a short (4-5 sentence) analysis of the source, including its main claim, its most important evidence, and its relevance to your topic. The source’s main claim should be summarized in the first sentence of your entry, so each entry will probably begin with a phrase such as “[the author] argues...” or “[the author] claims...” For more information on annotated bibliographies (including example entries), click here: http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu/ref/research/skill28.htm.
Place your final document in a Google Doc, share it with my gmail address, and bring it to class.
Feeder 1.3: Retrospective Outline / Analysis
The next step in formulating your counter-argument is to revisit your original source, the Natureeditorial you chose before we started Feeder 1.1, and compose a detailed retrospective outline of the article. We will talk about retrospective outlines in detail in class, but if you need a refresher you can click here (http://www.georgetowncollege.edu/eng/resources/editing-and-the-retrospective-outline/). Your retrospective outline must contain:
- The author’s thesis statement (or a paraphrase/summary of it) at the top of the document)
- The central claim or purpose of each body paragraph
In addition to composing the retrospective outline itself, each of you will also write a short, 1-2-paragraph analysis of how the author has chosen to construct his or her argument. This analysis should not concentrate on the issue itself, but rather how the author has employed the argumentative strategies we have discussed in class. In order to get started thinking about these issues, you might ask yourself:
- in what order does the author present his or her key evidence? why?
- has the author excluded or ignored any key information or evidence that you uncovered in your research? why did the author make this choice?
- how does the author conclude his or her essay? what impression does he or she attempt to leave the reader with?
Place your final document in a Google Doc, share it with my gmail address, and bring it to class.
Feeder 1.4: Constructing a Working Thesis Statement
For your final feeder assignment for Unit 1 you will compose a working thesis statement. Review all of the background research you have collected so far as well as your retrospective outline from Feeder 1.3 and decide on the central claim that you will make in your essay as well as the key evidence that you will use to support this claim. Next, compose your working thesis statement. We will talk about thesis statements extensively in class, but your working thesis should do each of these three things:
- Introduce your essay’s central claim
- Provide a road map for how your argument will unfold.
- Describe the stakes of your argument, i.e. why it matters to your readers.
As we noted in class, your thesis statement may be composed of more than one sentence, but it should be as concise as possible.
Place your final document in a Google Doc, share it with my gmail address, and bring it to class.
Unit 1 Project
After completing each of the feeder assignments you will have a sophisticated understanding of your topic, an appreciation for how the author from Nature has approached this issue, and a working thesis statement of your own. Now it’s time to formulate your own counter-argument.
There are several ways you can begin formulating your essay. You might begin by composing a prospective outline, you might free-write about your topic, you might begin composing the body paragraph about which you feel the most confident, or you might just jump right in and start crafting your introduction. If you have devoted yourself to the feeder assignments, though, composing your final essay should mostly be a matter of arranging and presenting the material you have already collected, though you should not underestimate the time and effort that this process will take.
Your final product should be an argumentative blog post (length: equivalent to 3-5 typed pages) that poses a credible counterargument to the original article you chose from Nature and presents compelling evidence in support of this claim. Some authors will find it helpful to mention the originalNature article and refute it directly; other authors might choose present their claim directly rather than as a reaction to the Nature editorial.
A successful post will (in order of importance):
1. Contain a strong thesis statement that meets all of the qualifications we outlined in class
2. Support the thesis with a wealth of credible, engaging evidence from authoritative sources
3. Be organized, presenting the evidence in a clear, logical order
4. Have a strong introduction that grabs the reader’s attention, introduces the topic, and transitions quickly to the main argument.
5. Have organized paragraphs with a clear topic sentence and adequate supporting evidence
6. Cite all sources in a manner appropriate for the blog and its audience.
7. Be written in a lively, engaging and authoritative middle style appropriate to the blog’s target audience, avoiding “to be” verbs in favor of a strong, active style
8. Be visually interesting, with pictures and/or links to other multimedia content
9. Be free of errors in spelling and grammar as well as visual formatting.
No comments:
Post a Comment