Sustainability for the Common
Good
GEO 300 Recitation: Winter 2014
TA : J a n e D a r b y s h i r e
darbyshj@onid.orst.edu
O f f i c e H o u rs :
M O N DAY 3 - 4 P M & T H U RS DAY 2 - 3 P M
( o r by a p p o i nt m e nt , W i l k i n s o n 2 0 4 )
M a i l b ox : W i l k i n s o n 1 0 4 ( c l o s e s at 5 p m )
Recitations
 Week 1
 Intro
 Critical Thinking (CT) Papers
 Turn in Assignment #1 Carbon Footprint (Friday sections
only)
 Week 3
 CT Paper Workshop
 Week 7
 Group Project Work Day
 Weeks 8, 9, 10
 Group presentations
Critical Thinking Papers
INSTRUCTIONS AND TIPS TO HELP YOU SUCCEED!
http://www.geo.oregonstate.edu/classes/geo300/ct
w14.html
Paper Format
 Heading
 Title
 Interpretation
 Analysis
 Evaluation
 Inference
 Explanation
 Self-regulation
 Works cited (must be 21st century (2000
& later accepted)
Example topic…
 Prompt: "Natural gas production in the US has
increased dramatically, mostly because of the
"fracking" technique to release gas from rock deep
underground. Natural gas prices have plummeted,
resulting in more natural gas power plants, fewer
wind turbine farms, less coal being burned. But
natural gas is still a hydrocarbon fossil fuel, and each
cubic foot we burn puts more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Take a facet of this topic and run with
it."
Heading
Include
Example
Name
Student ID #
Question #
GEO 300
Recitation day/time (W8,
F10, F12)
 TA Name (Jane
Darbyshire)
 CT# and due date
 Word count total, plus subtotals for analysis and for
other combined sections
 Jane Example





 ID NUMBER
 QUESTION 1-1
 GEO 300, Fall ‘13
 TA: Jane
 CT#1 due 1/9/201
 Word Count: 549
(Analysis: 405 ; Other:
144)
Title
Instructions
Example
 I should be able to tell
 The precautionary
your topic and your
position from the title.
 You can make it
clever/witty but don’t
be offensive.
principle and
Marcellus
hydrofracking: Why
policymakers should
rethink the loose
regulations around
injecting mutagenic
cancer-water into our
communities
Interpretation
Instructions
Example
 This is your very short
 Recently, natural gas extraction
introduction paragraph.
 Introduce why the topic is
important, explain it very
simply (if needed), and
then conclude with your
thesis statement.
 Thesis statement: your
argument/position on the
topic and how you will
support your position.**
in the Marcellus Shale region
became economically profitable
due to advances in
hydrofracturing, which involves
injecting high-pressured water
solution into the ground to break
shale and release gas.
However, because
hydrofracking is unproven
and potentially harmful to
both humans and the
environment, policymakers
must exercise the
precautionary principle.
** It doesn’t matter what your opinion is, only that you support it with a well-written
essay that follows the instructions.
Analysis
Instructions
 Use peer-reviewed
literature to form an
argument and support your
position.
 Come up with 2 or 3 main
points for your argument.
 Write a short paragraph for
each one, citing your PR lit.
 Don’t waste space
explaining details of what
something is or how it
works.
Example
 Three points:



Hydrofracking is not proven
to be safe, and may be
dangerous.
Hydrofracking can lead to
environmental harm.
Hydrofracking can harm
people and communities.
 Each of these points
supports the thesis about
using the ‘precautionary
principle’ and regulating
hydrofracking.
Example Analysis
Policymakers should restrict Marcellus Shale development
because hydrofracking’s safety is unproven. In fact, outside
flawless execution, hydrofracking will cause harm.
Transportation spills, well leaks, groundwater leaching, site
discharge, and poor wastewater disposal can all lead to water
contamination (Rozell & Reaven, 2011; p. 1391).
Contamination is an issue if the frackwater is dangerous, but
scientists cannot confirm or deny the danger because drilling
companies keep the frackwater additives undisclosed
(Engelder, Howarth, & Ingraffea, 2011; p. 271; Kargbo,
Wilhelm, & Campbell, 2010; p. 5681). Finally, the
development is happening faster than scientists can study the
full social-environmental impacts, thus fleecing policymakers
who will not realize the danger until it is too late (Engelder et
al., 2011; p. 271).
What scientists have learned about hydrofracking suggests that
it can devastate the environment. First, hydrofracking requires
development of roads, wells, and retention ponds, requiring
resource use and causing environmental disturbance (Kargbo et
al., 2010; pp. 5680-81). Then, it requires massive water
withdrawals from local rivers, which upsets the balance in
freshwater ecosystems disturbance (Kargbo et al., 2010; p.
5681). Furthermore, dangerous contamination from
hydrofracking additives can happen when frackwater leaches
into surface or groundwater, or if it is improperly
disposed/reused (Kargbo et al., 2010; p. 5681). Marcellus
Shale, particularly, produces risky quantities of arsenic and
selenium in hydrofracking wastewater (Balaba & Smart, 2012;
p. 1441). Even air quality is affected by hydrofracking, which
produces toxic, carcinogenic air pollutants and elevated levels of
ground-level ozone (Engelder et al., 2011; p. 271). Thus, even if
unintended pollution and seepage are avoided, Marcellus gas
extraction still harms the local environment via its
infrastructure, water consumption, and air pollution.
Example Analysis
Finally, policymakers should regulate Marcellus
hydrofracking because of its human costs. The
environmental contamination can have profound effects
on human health (e.g. cancer, death, mutations),
particularly if frackwater enters drinking water supplies;
yet, no public health experts are included in Marcellus
advisory commissions (Goldstein, Kriesky, Pavliakova,
2012; p. 483). Furthermore, the boom in shale
development destabilized communities, increasing
traffic, degrading infrastructure, decreasing quality of
life, and creating conflict (Pifer, 2011; p. 625; Weigle,
2011; p. 7). Issues with the leasing process, fairness of
lease terms/payments, and encroachment on adjacent
property rights have all emerged due to underdeveloped
regulations and inadequate case law surrounding gas
exploitation (Pifer, 2011; p. 628; Lamarre, 2011; p. 457).
In sum, hydrofracking has negative effects on human
health and wellbeing, and current legal/regulatory
structures are insufficient to protect communities.
 Use topic
sentences and
conclusion
sentences in your
paragraphs to give
them focus.
 Support your subpoints with
evidence.
Evaluation
Instructions
 Write a sentence explaining




the bias of authors of at
least TWO of your sources.
Be specific.
Tip: Look for authors’ bios.
Where did they work? Who
funded their research?
When mentioning the bias,
indicate how they might be
biased.
Alternative: limitation of
two articles.
Example
 Kargbo, Wilhelm, and
Campbell all work for
the EPA, which is
constantly threatened
due to gas company
lobbyists. Weigle and
Rozell worked for state
DECs, giving them
conservationist, proregulation biases.
Inference
Instructions
 Think of some consequence




of your topic that you
haven’t already talked
about.
What if? Think outside the
box.
If this (or that) does (or
doesn’t) happen, then…
Make a prediction.
Think of a specific
situation, ecosystem, or
population for your
inference.
Example
 Hydrofracking will create
a boom and bust in the
Marcellus region, leaving
communities with
abandoned sites, fewer
jobs, and degraded
ecosystems.
 Hydrofracking is a
distraction, and it is
slowing investment and
advancement in greener
energy technology.
Explanation
Instructions
 Concise conclusion
 Remind us of your
thesis statement and
how you’ve proved
your point.
Example
 Policymakers must
implement regulations
on Marcellus exploitation
to curtail further
environmental and
human harm. Decisionmakers must exercise the
precautionary principle,
forcing drillers to prove
their safety and remain
accountable.
Self-regulation
Instructions
 Think of your own bias.
 Why did you take the
position you did?
 Dig deep!
Example
 “I grew up in
Pennsylvania, where
my family and friends
still live.”
 [Pennsylvania is
affected by the issue, so
living there in turn
affects the author’s
opinions]
Reference List 101
 Basic form (use author order from the article!*)
 Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of
Periodical, volume number(issue number), pages.
 Three to seven authors
 Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C. R., Berry, A., Harlow, T., & Bach, J. S.
(2003). There's more to self-esteem than whether it is high or low: The
importance of stability of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65(1), 1190-1204.
 More than 7 authors:
 After the sixth author's name, use an ellipses in place of the author names.
Then provide the final author name. There should be no more than seven
names.
 Miller, F. H., Choi, M. J., Angeli, L. L., Harland, A. A., Stamos, J. A., Thomas, S.
T., . . . Rubin, L. H. (2009). Web site usability for the blind and low-vision
user. Technical Communication, 57(4), 323-335.
 Source: Purdue OWL for APA
 OTHER FORMATS (MLA etc) ARE OK, BUT BE CONSISTENT!
Reference List 101
 Do not use “et al” to replace author names in your
references section no matter what format you choose
to use.
 Journal articles you found in an online database that
are published in a print Journal (even if you access the
content online) are NOT “web resources” and should
not be referenced as such.

Do not include the long, crazy EBSCO (or other database) URL to
the article. That expires, and you will lose some formatting points.
Reference List 101
 Pay attention to:
 Capitalization of title
 Capitalization of Journal Name
 Italicize Journal Name & Vol. #
 Keep list of authors in the same order as they appear in the
article.
 Alphabetize the listings by first author’s last name.
Barnes, T. (2005). A fistful of paintballs. Journal of Community, 4(1), 12-36.
Chang, B.F., Barnes, T., & Perry, B. (2005). The first Chang dynasty. Journal of Community,
2(1), 32-66.
Nadir, A., Edison, A., & Hawthorn, P (2012). Digital estate planning. Journal of Community,
69(20), 19-24.
Winger, J. & Nadir, A. (2011). Remedial chaos theory. Journal of Community, 3(3), 1-7.
Citations 101
 A Work by Two Authors:
 Research by Wegener and Petty (2004; p. 117) supports...
 (Wegener & Petty, 2004; p. 117)
 A Work by Three to Five Authors: List all the authors in the signal
phrase or in parentheses the first time you cite the source.



(Kernis, Cornell, Sun, Berry, & Harlow, 2003; pp. 33-37)
In subsequent citations, only use the first author's last name followed by "et al." in
the signal phrase or in parentheses (Kernis et al., 2003; p. 39).
In et al., et should not be followed by a period.
 Six or More Authors: Use the first author's name followed by et al. in
the signal phrase or in parentheses.


Harris et al. (2001; p. 221) argued...
(Harris et al., 2001; pp. 221-223)
 For ALL citations: add the page number(s) on which you found the info
(needs to match article page interval).
 Punctuation goes AFTER the citation (Watson, 2013; p. 452).
Using your sources in-text
 AVOID: Watson (2012; pg. 1) argues that “using lots of quotations can
be tedious for the reader, especially when the exact wording of the
idea is not particularly important.”


PLAGIARISM: Using lots of quotations can be tedious for the reader,
and thus, we should paraphrase (Watson, 2012; p. 1).


Not plagiarized, but it would flow better if paraphrased.
Did not use quotation marks around the quoted part.
PLAGIARISM: Direct quotations bog down text.

Used an idea from a source, but did not cite it
 BETTER, but still avoid: Watson (2012; pg. 1) argues that direct
quotations can be superfluous.


Paraphrased… but in these papers, we don’t want you to waste space
talking about the authors.
Instead, simply paraphrase the results that support your position.
 BEST: Direct quotations complicate essays unnecessarily (Watson,
2012; p. 1). Paraphrasing helps your ideas flow more smoothly.
Finding PR Sources
Acceptable Sources:
• books or PR journal
articles
• published from 20002013
Good Source
(PR, has all the info you
need)
Not Great, but
Okay
(no author- real PR articles
are longer & have authors
listed… but this is acceptable
as long as it comes up in the
PR search)
Making your References/Citations
Reference listing:
7 or fewer authors,
must list all
In text:
More than 5
authors, use et al.
every time
Rahm, B. G., Bates, J. T., Bertoia, L. R., Galford, A. E., Yoxtheimer, D. A., & Riha, S.
J. (2013). Wastewater management and Marcellus Shale gas development:
Trends, drivers, and planning implications. Journal of Environmental
Management, 120, 105-113.
Here, I summarized information from the article in my
own words (Rahm et al., 2013; p. 110-111).
Avoid Getting a Zero
There are four ways to guarantee
yourself a ZERO SCORE on the
paper
How to avoid the zero.
1. Unacceptable sources.
2. Not properly citing all
four of your primary
sources in the text of
your paper.
3. Not meeting the word
counts.
4. Not using the required
format, i.e.,
Interpretation, Analysis,
Evaluation, etc.
 Cite at least 4 peer-reviewed
sources from the 21st century
(2001 on)
 Cite every fact or idea you use
with an in-text citation and
reference listing. Don’t copypaste ANYTHING or copy exact
wording.
 Must be 400-450 words in
Analysis and 100-150 words in all
other sections combined… Make
sure the TOTAL doesn’t add up
to more than 550.
 Use headings, and don’t forget
any sections.
Learning to be concise: It’s hard.
Before
In the last decade, natural gas
extraction in the Marcellus Shale region
became economically profitable due to
advances in hydrofracturing (also:
hydrofracking, fracking) technology.
Hydrofracking involves injecting highpressured water solution into the
ground, thus breaking the shale and
releasing pockets of gas. Hydrofracking
has led to a boom in development.
However, because hydrofracking is
unproven and potentially harmful to
both humans and the environment,
policymakers must exercise the
precautionary principle.
After
Recently, natural gas extraction
in the Marcellus Shale region
became economically profitable
due to advances in
hydrofracturing, which involves
injecting high-pressured water
solution into the ground to break
shale and release gas. However,
because hydrofracking is
unproven and potentially
harmful to both humans and the
environment, policymakers must
exercise the precautionary
principle.
Logistics
 Must be typed, legible
 Print on front and back of 1 piece of paper
 (-2 if you don’t, +1 bonus if you do)
 Attach correct grading half-sheet (or -15)
 Available on the website
 Initial grading half-sheet (or -5)
 Bring a final copy to week 3 recitation.
Schedule
 Recitations: Weeks 1, 3, 7,
8, 9, 10
 Week 4: MWF Sections:
CT #1 Final Due Monday
January 27th (in lecture)
 Week 3: Bring CT#1 near-
final draft (Recitation
workshop)

Wednesday Night Section:
CT #1 Final Due Friday
January 24th (TA Mailbox)
 Week 6: CT#2 due (in
lecture)
 Week 7: Group Project
Work Day in Recitation
Schedule
 Week 8: Energize
Corvallis Due (Feb 28)

Group Project
Presentations (recitation)
 Week 9: CT#3 due

Group Project
Presentations (recitation)
 Week 10:

Group Project
Presentations (recitation)
The Contract
I understand that I will receive an undisputable zero score on
my CT paper:
 If I have more than 550 total words in my paper
 If my analysis section is less than 400 or greater than 450 words
 If my other combined sections (besides analysis) have word
counts less than 100 or greater than 150
 If I do not reference at least four peer-reviewed sources (journal
articles or books) published between 2000 and 2013
 If I don’t cite all my sources correctly in the body of my paper, or
if I plagiarize
 If I do not follow the format of the paper (with all the appropriate
sections and subheadings)
Furthermore, I understand that:
 Newspapers, magazines, and websites are not peer-reviewed
sources.
 Not every source on EBSCO or OSU libraries is peer-reviewed,
and I must take precautions to narrow the search to PR-only
sources.
 The “ways to get a zero” (word count limits, PR source
requirements) are completely rigid and inflexible.
 E.g. If I cite 1 of 4 sources from 1999, I have failed to meet
the PR source requirement, and I will get a zero on my
paper.
 Not realizing that I didn’t meet the requirements (a bad source I
thought was good, a miscalculated word count, etc.) does not
exempt me from the zero score.



Signing up for this class means that I am beholden to
the course/assignment rules, and staying in the class
implies that the rules apply to me. I can drop the class
if I do not like the rules, but the rules will not be
changed for me.
My TA wants to help me succeed, and she can provide
lots of helpful feedback BEFORE I turn in my paper.
My sad story (“but I won’t be able to graduate!” “but I
will lose my scholarship!” ) will make my TA very sad,
but she will not be able to [she is not allowed to]
change my score out of pity.
Thus, I verify that:
 I, and I alone (not my TA or anyone else), am
responsible for my score on CT papers.
 I will do everything in my power to avoid a zero and
submit papers that meet all requirements.
 I will get help before the paper is due rather than after.
 I won’t beg for a score if I get a zero, but instead will
learn from my mistakes and do better next time.
 I won’t harass Steve/my TA about these rules, because
I have full knowledge of them ahead of time, and I am
voluntarily remaining in the class anyways.