Writing Course Review Form (1/12)
I. General Education Review – Writing Course
Dept/Program
Course # (i.e. ENEX
Applied Arts and
Subject
200)
Sciences
Course Title
Introduction to Technical Writing
WRIT 121
II. Endorsement/Approvals
Complete the form and obtain signatures before submitting to Faculty Senate Office.
Please type / print name Signature
Instructor
Cathy Corr
Phone / Email
243-7903
Program Chair
Cathy Corr
Dean
Barry Good
III. Type of request
New
One-time Only
Reason for new course, change or deletion
Change
Renewal
Date
Remove
IV Overview of the Course Purpose/ Description: Provide an introduction to the subject
matter and course content.
This class is designed to provide students with the beginning writing strategies used with
technical communication—concrete, specific text; conventions of graphic placement; and the
beginnings of organizational design features. Students learn and practice these strategies
through three assignments—a format driven technical description, a group presentation about
credible writing that leads to individual papers, and end with a research-driven public science
paper. Students participate in revision days for their three major assignments. There is always
a focus on audience. Writing conventions are addressed through a working relationship with a
handbook and through revision days.
V Learning Outcomes: Explain how each of the following learning outcomes will be achieved.
Students write an 8-page public science paper
Student learning outcomes :
using research techniques learned through
Use writing to learn and synthesize new
workshops and help from the Missoula College
concepts
librarian. Through small groups discussion and
individual meetings with the professor, students
work through their ideas and submit drafts for
revision.
Through short assignments and readings and
Formulate and express written opinions and
discussion, students develop a writing
ideas that are developed, logical, and
community to talk about ideas, leading to writing
organized
and revising of papers. Students get input from
their peers as well as conferences with the
professor as they develop ideas and rewrite until
the message is clear.
Compose written documents that are
appropriate for a given audience, purpose and
context
Part of the code of ethics for technical
communicators is to write for your audience.
Different assignments have different purposes
and the discussion/revision/instructor
conferences become the audience.
Revise written work based on constructive
comments from the instructor
Find, evaluate, and use information
effectively and ethically (see
http://www.lib.umt.edu/informationliteracy/)
Begin to use discipline-specific writing
conventions
Demonstrate appropriate English language
usage
VI. Writing Course Requirements
Enrollment is capped at 25 students.
If not, list maximum course enrollment. Explain
how outcomes will be adequately met for this
number of students. Justify the request for
variance.
What instructional methods will be used to teach
students to write for specific audiences, purposes,
and genres?
The importance of a writing process is stressed
throughout the semester. Students are required
to get peer feedback, but more importantly to
conference with the instructor and build a
revision plan for the next draft.
The Missoula College librarian is central to our
research process. What constitutes a credible,
ethical source is a part of every assignment,
especially our last two major assignments.
WRIT 121 is a broad-based writing class taught
to students from many disciplines. Citation
styles are discussed but APA is required for the
final paper.
Students must demonstrate proper grammar and
appropriate style in everything they write. We
focus on writing conventions through use of a
handbook
Enrollment is capped at 24.
Part of the code of ethics for technical
communicators is to write for your audience.
Different assignments have different purposes
and the discussion/revision/instructor
conferences become the audience.
Which written assignments will include revision in The three major assignments all have
response to instructor’s feedback?
instructor and peer feedback that leads to
revision.
VII. Writing Assignments: Please describe course assignments. Students should be required to
individually compose at least 16 pages of writing for assessment. At least 50% of the course grade
should be based on students’ performance on writing assignments. Clear expression, quality, and
accuracy of content are considered an integral part of the grade on any writing assignment.
Formal Graded Assignments
The syllabus shows the course to be about
1000 points—700 of those points are from
the major assignments. Attached 12-16
pages of writing
Informal Ungraded Assignments
Of the 1000 points in the class, the remaining
300 points are more informal but still carry
points.
VIII. Syllabus: Paste syllabus below or attach and send digital copy with form. 
For assistance on syllabus preparation see: http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/syllabus.html
The syllabus must include the following:
1. Writing outcomes
2. Information literacy expectations
3. Detailed requirements for all writing assignments or append writing assignment instructions
Paste syllabus here.
WRIT 121 INTRODUCTION TO TECHNICAL WRITING
Course Syllabus
Instructor: Cathy Corr
243-7903
Required Materials:
Professional and Technical Writing Strategies
VanAlstyne, eighth custom edition
Little, Brown Compact Handbook,
Jane E. Aaron, eighth edition
cathy.corr@umontana.edu
Course Objectives:
1. Introduction to constructed text that accurately communicates technical information using
appropriate technical writing constructs, document design, and graphic placement within
technical formats.
2. An awareness of both academic and technical writing genres and how the writing situation
shapes the document.
3. Introduction to a writing process that includes revision and editing.
4. Introduction to The Little, Brown Compact Handbook as a tool to gain control of punctuation,
grammar, syntax, and spelling.
Workload and Expectations Overview:
This course focuses on the kind of writing that fills manuals—description, instruction,
and analysis--as well as public science writing. We will read and discuss technical documents and
materials about technical writing. There is a special focus on audience as evidenced in this quote
from the Society for Technical Communicator’s Code of Ethics: Technical writers “satisfy the
audience’s need for information, not the writer’s own need for self-expression.” This kind of
writing is all about the reader.
All writing classes address writing conventions at some point. I address punctuation
problems through clauses and basic sentence structure that leads to a working knowledge of the
The Little, Brown Compact Handbook, a tool you take with you to use in other classes. It is
appropriate to line edit technical documents, so this can be a good opportunity to hone your
editing skills.
All major papers will include a revision day where we can work the writing process as
we write these papers to better understand how we compose, and to learn once again that there is
nothing neat and tidy about writing and revising. In technical writing with the audience so
important, we need feedback and must adjust our documents continually.
After completing the technical/professional papers and assignments, students will be
expected to apply their knowledge of strong technical text, graphic placement, and design
features within all other assignments, especially the public science piece.
There are readings both in Moodle and your text that will require your critical reading
skills and are part of the daily assignments. Your second major assignment draws from the
readings in part 2 of your text and requires you to define what credible writing in cyberspace is
and how a reader determines what is credible.
The in-class projects are designed to help build a writing community. We never write
alone and technical writing especially needs input from others. We often use small groups to help
each other think through writing problems and acquire ideas from each other.
There is a public science paper that gives you an opportunity to explore a subject and
present information in a technical style. Lastly, there will be an opportunity to synthesize your
writing knowledge in a self-reflective final, both the already acquired and the new, and to
articulate a new understanding of writing that is broader and more inclusive. It is your
opportunity to build bridges between all of your writing classes.
Grading Scale:
94-100 A
93-90 A-
87-89 B+
86-83 B
82-80 B-
77-79 C+
76-73 C
72-70 C-
Attendance
Attendance is an expectation. Students who do not attend class do not perform as well as students
who do attend class.
First, why it matters
A writing course is unlike most of the classes you will take while at the
University of Montana. In other classes, there will be a specific amount of well-defined material
to be covered, and lecturing is the most common mode for distributing that
information. Although your instructor will give you information and guide you as you develop
effective writing strategies and practices, becoming a better writer does not happen from listening
to lectures. "Learning" in this course takes place mainly through engagement and inquiry--that
means you will be participating in many class discussions and group-related activities. You will
not find yourself sitting in class taking notes. Personal situations and required university events may arise that, on a rare occasion, make it
impossible for you to be in class. Remember, however, that’s why two (2) absences are allowed;
please reserve those for exceptional circumstances. If you must miss class, you are responsible
for obtaining any handouts or assignments for the class. Make sure you talk with your instructor
in advance if you are worried about meeting a deadline or missing a class.
The Policy
You are allotted 2 "free" absences: you do not need permission, and I don’t need an explanation.
Use these two wisely. More than two absences will compromise your grade.
3rd absence: final grade drops one letter grade
4th absence: final grade is an F.
Why the policy? Without attending class, you cannot participate as a member of a learning
community, and you cannot be a writer and collaborator with your peers. Participation includes
taking part in class discussions, asking questions, and contributing to the classroom
experience. Of course, this includes doing the required reading and writing assignments.
Information Literacy With the help of the Missoula College Librarian and through course
assignments the following standards from the Association of College and Research Libraries
are incorporated into this course:
▪ Standard One: The information literate student defines and articulates the need for information.
▪ Standard Two: The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and
efficiently.
▪ Standard Three: The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically
and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.
▪ Standard Four: The information literate student, individually or as a member of a group, uses
information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose.
Standard Five: The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal, and
social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and
legally.
Other Course Policies
There will be no opportunity to “make-up” tests, quizzes or in-class assignments that are not
turned-in during the designated class period. This make-up policy is applied at the discretion of
the Instructor.
Format of all works produced will depend upon the specific assignment. All final drafts must be
word-processed. Do not put writing assignments in folders or binders; staple them in the upper,
left hand corner. Save everything to disc for your own protection.
Plagiarism of any sort will result in a course grade of F. The U of M’s student Conduct Code
defines plagiarism as “representing another person’s words, ideas, data, or materials as one’s
own.” Students may be asked for their research or sources at any time.
Disability Services: Students with disabilities are provided accommodations upon presenting the
proper verification. Come see me.
WTS writing curriculum is in transition. The COT is part of the UM system and the student
populations attending all the campuses are diverse and dynamic. As UM at large and COT
specifically continue to grow, the faculty must address the needs of these varied populations.
COT’s Department of Applied Arts and Sciences and the writing curriculum in particular are
facing exciting and varied curricula and pedagogical challenges. The changes reflect current
research and conversation going on in the discipline of rhetoric and composition that dynamically
act as an evolving ‘answer’ to the needs of the COT students as well as responding to
administrative directives. Students are invited to participate in the ongoing course development
and to assess changes in the writing curriculum and instruction.
Overview of course. These dates are general and I reserve the right to keep a little
“wiggle room”.
Weeks 1-4 There are short assignments due the first 4 weeks. As we read through
chapters 1, 2, and 3, we will learn the basics for this course. There are readings and short
assignments due each week.
Week 1: Part 1, chapter 1, pages 20-39.
Part 2: “Computers Invite a Tangled Web of Complications” pg 106
“The Case for Short Words” pg 122
Sample of tech writing—Part 3, pg 6 and 7
Week 2: Part 1, chapter 1, pages 39-48 and pages 67-9 (exercises 2, 3, and 5-9)
“English as a Global Language” pg 178
Part 2: chapter 12 “American Individualism”
Part 3, pgs 4 and 5.
Week 3: Sentence Level Issue #1
Part 2 “Bias-free Language: Some Guidelines” pg 443
Part 1, chapter 2 (pages 72-77). The rest of the chapter is full of examples, so
look through the examples but pay attention to the ideas in pages 72-77.
Part 1, chapter 3. Look at the list on page 122 and mark “space,” headings,”
“lists,” and “emphatic features.” You will be held responsible for those four design
features during this course. Read the information for those features and we will discuss
this chapter in class. Page 146-7—Writing Projects 1. Document Design.
Week 4: finish the 3 previous weeks.
Sentence Level Issue #2—comma splices
Weeks 5 and 6 will bring your first technical paper. This will be taken from chapter 5.
We will work with parts of chapter 4, too. Sentence Level Issue #3 part 3, pgs 8 & 9.
Weeks 7, 8, and 9 brings discussion and assignments for chapters 6 (part 3, pgs 12-17)
and 7 and chapters 8, 9, and 10. Chapters 6 and 7 compare instructions and process
analysis. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 take a look at professional writing.
Week 10, 11, 12 brings your credibility readings. This assignment requires readings
from chapter 11 and group work. The readings culminate in a PowerPoint Presentation
and a summary.
http://www.ted.com/talk/lang/eng/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html
“Saying is Believing” pg 125
Weeks 13, 14, 15, and 16 (Final and exit interview) brings the last paper, a public
science essay. Also during this time you will complete and submit a self-reflective final.
“On Good Wrtng” part 2, pg 115 and “Wrtng to Change the World” part 2, pg 109.
The major assignments/areas of the course:
Mechanism Description
Credibility readings/presentation
Public science essay
Self-Reflective final
Chapters 6-10 short assignments
Various discussions/small group work/short writing assignments
(I add assignments here as needed)
150 points
255 points
220 points
100 points
200 points
100 points
1000 points
Paper #1
Instructions for Mechanism Description – Chapter 5
Notes from the Instructor
This is the first major paper and fits a strong format. Technical Writing is analytical and
descriptive. Your papers for this class do not need length, they need depth, and they need
accuracy of detail. So, I am not looking for length, I am looking for solid, exacting
information that fits into the format in Part 3, Student Packet, on pages 53-59 in
Chapter13.
The information on page 53 is a checklist for your paper. I place it beside your papers as
I grade them. This shows the point breakdown piece by piece within your paper. Notice
that this point breakdown is very specific, which means that this paper is totally format
driven. You fit your information inside the format, not vice versa.
I rewrote the sample paper on page 273 in your textbook and the re-write is in Part 3 on
pages 55-57. Use the re-write in part 3 to guide you through this paper.
Sample Papers
There are also 3 sample papers. The first two sample papers are solid and well done and
both received a grade of A. The third is an example of what not to do.
Paper #1: This is a solid paper and shows a good way to organize a parts list for a paper.
There are many parts to this mechanism and the writer’s organization helps the reader
group the parts into 3 main areas and then lists subparts for the areas. This is a logical
organization method for a mechanism.
Paper #2: This student actually invented this mechanism and is selling it now. He used
his writings from this class to go with his mechanism when he sells them. He probably
uses too much space for this paper, but he was laying out everything very clearly so he
could cut and paste at a later date. It is a very clear job.
Paper #3: This paper is not a technical description. The format is not followed and the
tone is informal. This is the kind of information you would get if you went on the
Internet and googled information about a mechanism. It reads like a report from about
third grade instead of a technical description.
The paper
The specifics for your paper are laid out on pages 53 and 54 in Part 3, along with the
points for each part. Just follow the format and you will be fine. This paper is not a
creative paper; it is a formatted paper.
Introduction – 35 points
Your textbook is very well set up to help you with this paper. Page 260 in chapter 5 tells
how to write the Title for a Technical Description, and then gives you examples. It then
tells how to write an audience statement and gives examples and so on through the paper.
Your book is very concrete about this paper. There is nothing fancy about this paper; it
needs to be very solid and detailed.
The Introduction should have a sentence on the intended audience, followed by a formal
definition, followed by a physical description of the object as a whole. This makes up the
first paragraph. The graphic comes next (hand-drawn or copied from a cited source),
followed by a 3-5 sentence paragraph on the process of how the mechanism works. The
process SHOULD NOT be instructions, or use “you” commands, but instead be very
formal and impersonal. A list of the main parts with bullets follows.
See page 286, #2 in Ch 5 for an example of how to not write a process paragraph.
Two correct ways of writing this same paragraph are in Part 3, page 59.
Body
The body of your paper leads directly from your list of parts (The list of parts is your
thesis statement). Each paragraph is a major assembly or a main part, so it is important to
set up your list of parts appropriately. Study the sample papers, and look at page 265 in
Chapter 5 as a good example, too. The “container” and the “plunger assembly” examples
are very good. Note that the body of your paper is worth 40 points. Follow the format
exactly.
The second section, the Description of Parts, should have a paragraph on each main part
in your list. These paragraphs include the same as the intro paragraph above for each
INDIVIDUAL PART: a definition of the part, its physical description (color, material,
weight, measurements, etc.), and how it functions and relates to the other parts. Don’t
forget transition words in your paragraphs, like “first”, “second”, “finally”, “next”, etc.
Concluding Assessment
The concluding assessment is the only part of your paper where you put your opinion.
The rest of the paper is factual and objective. Here you show your own expertise. Page
266-67 in Chapter 5 are good examples. Read the information on the checklist about
concluding assessment and ask questions if you need.
For this assessment, use 2-3 of the points that are listed under “Concluding Assessment”
on page 53 in Part 3. You get to choose what to write here: compare to another model,
disadvantages vs. advantages, efficiency of mechanism, etc.
You should NEVER use 1st or 2nd person in this paper, and no personal opinion of the
product should be evident. You’re not trying to sell your mechanism!!
After this revision day, work through the questions below.
Did I follow the format on pg 25 in chapter 13? What changes do I have to make?
Is my audience specific enough? Is my audience specific enough for Cathy’s scrutiny?
Did I organize the parts into main parts and subparts?
Was I specific enough in the body of the paper? Do I have a purpose for each main and
subpart? Do I have dimensions for everything? Height, width, thickness,
circumference??? Did I use shape words, like those found on page 272? Did I list the
material of each part?
Is my process paragraph the only place I have how the mechanism works?
Do I have analysis in my concluding paragraph? What specifically?
How do I move my paper forward for the next class? Be specific.
Paper #2
CREDIBILITY READINGS
These are the readings for your next paper. This week and next you will work to 1)
understand the readings in your text concerning credibility 2) submit a short discussion of
four questions, and 3) write a paper that defines what credibility means in cyberspace.
We will begin our examination of credibility with readings that are in part 2 of your text,
pages 230-259. Then you will write a rough draft and a final paper that defines credible
cyberspace information. After you read through each reading, I ask you to be thoughtful
of the questions at the end of each reading. Below I point out which questions seem
pertinent for a particular reading.
Readings and Questions
1. “Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism”
Under “Thinking Critically”, think about questions 1, 2, and 6. Try to state what you
think of online friendships, self-portraits, and Face book. How do you know if you are
presenting the real you? How do you know if someone online is presenting who he or
she really is? It is important to think this through, as you will need to be concrete in your
final paper.
2. “Virtually Trustworthy”
Under “Thinking Critically”, think about questions 2, 3, and 4. Think about what is
credible to you and what is not credible to you. Work at understanding what portrays
“trust” to you. Make sure you understand paragraph 9. What is real and what isn’t?
3. “Texting”
Please think through all five questions under “Thinking Critically”. Try to summarize
each question in your head.
4. “r u online?”: The Evolving Lexicon of Wired Teens, pgs 247-250
Under “Thinking Critically”, visit the sites suggested in question #2 and work through
question #3, taking notes in a summary format for your paper.
5. “Thx for the IView! I Wud Luv 2 Work 4 U!!:” pgs 250-253
Work through questions 1 and 2 under “Thinking Critically”. Summarize how you think
credibility fits into the situation described in this reading. Use your summary to help you
with your paper.
6. “The Other Side of E-Mail”
Think through questions 1, 4, and 5. Think about how email differs from ordinary
conversation.
7. “Blogging in the Global Lunchroom”
Think through question #5 under “Thinking Critically”. Jot down some notes that will
help you with your paper. Then think about exploring some blogs. Go to some
mainstream places like MSNBC and CNN and look at what those kinds of blogs are
doing. Those kinds of blogs should be better and more credible than most that you will
read. Think about Face book and person blogs and websites. How credible are those
sites to you? Why? Who seems credible and why? What about utube? Think of the
dissidents who are using utube? Are they credible? There are uprisings in foreign
countries that are being documented by the protestors instantaneously. As news happens,
the rest of the world can watch. How credible is this news and why or why not?
After you have completed the readings and thought about the content, submit to Cathy
short discussions of the following questions. Submit discussion of these four questions
according to the due dates in Moodle.
These questions are designed to help you get started with your paper.
1. From the first reading—How have the social networking sites affected your
understanding of the word credible?
2. From the second reading—What does “trust” mean to you in an online situation?
3. From the 5th reading—summarize how you think credibility fits into the situation
described in this reading.
4. From the 7th reading—exploring a few blogs can help you with this paper. You
may find credible blogs and not so credible blogs. At the very least look at
MSNBC and CNN blogs and write in a short paragraph what you think is credible
or not credible on these two blogs. You may use other blogs, but examine what is
credible or not and write up your thoughts in a short paragraph.
Think about your paper—3-5 pages
This paper needs to define what credible means in cyberspace writing—any kind of
writing that is on the internet. What do you look for to determine if something is
credible? Students have approached this in different ways through the semesters.
A previous student looked at credibility through how the earthquake in Japan was
reported. The formal news institutions seemed to be behind the blogs, Utube, and Face
book. How credible were the social sites? How credible was CNN? Comparing the two
and the strengths and weaknesses of each brought a good paper. Below is a quick listing
of credible points from the news about Japan both from individuals and from news
institutions.
How credible is the media? When the disaster in Japan was happening, mixed
stories came out from the media. There was confusion. Personal blogs were a
piece of the story—some more credible than others. People who lived inland
didn’t even really know what was happening on the coast. The media couldn’t be
trusted—the story had to play out. Images played a part in credibility—media
can’t be completely trusted, they need pictures, videos, quotes to show integrity
and that shows credibility. Completeness of information and verification of
information helps determine credibility.
Another student looked at three websites and determined what specifically made each
credible or not credible. Below is another quick listing that came from papers.
Credibility—professional tone, experience, unbiased opinion, concrete, believable
tone, organized. Neutral—not biased, clear and accurate information, updated
consistently.
Not credible—unprofessional, scattered-not organized, sexist or lazy, uninformed,
no credentials, opinionated-results were speculative and there was an opinionated
tone. Condescending, general statements, no factual backing.
The information above from students is put there to give you an example of where
students are taking this topic, and to help you see how students are trying to understand
credibility.
This topic is not concrete; this topic is abstract. Many people begin this paper by looking
up the term credibility: trustworthiness, reliability, sincerity, and integrity are all
synonyms worth considering as you work to define what credible writing in cyberspace
is.
After you work through in your own head what credibility in cyberspace writing means to
you, rough out an outline of your paper before you begin your rough draft. Be sure and
read the readings and thoughtfully think about what you think credibility in writing in
cyberspace means. The readings and discussions are designed to lead you to a worthwhile
paper.
So your charge is to examine credible writing in cyberspace. Students rate this paper
positively. The issue is timely and there is much to think about through these readings.
Enjoy learning as you wrestle with the term “credibility”.
Submit a rough draft through Moodle according to the posted due date.
Paper #3
Public Science Writing
Some History
Your final paper is a public science paper. Public science writing is not to be confused with
popular science writing. The word popular has a negative connotation in science writing and can
mean writing that has been diluted. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, two great science pieces
were written: Loren Eiseley’s Darwin’s Century (1958) and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring
(1962). Science was seen as lofty and as something of which only the extremely intelligent were
capable. In fact, a strong prejudice within the scientific community thought that public science
writing was an activity much inferior to the actual doing of science and that scientists should not
waste their precious time on “popularizing” their subject for the public.
If you are interested, there are others who have helped moved science writing forward:
James Watson The Double Helix (1968)
Carl Sagan The Cosmic Connection (1973)
Lewis Thomas The Lives of a Cell (1974)
Stephen Jay Gould Natural History magazine and Ever Since Darwin (1977)
Steven Weinberg The First Three Minutes (1977)
Freeman Dyson Disturbing the Universe (1979)
Alan Lightman Science 80 and editor of The Best American Science Writing 1980-today)
Then in the 1980s and 1990s there has been an explosion of public science writing by scientists
and nonscientists alike.
What is public science writing?
Good public science writing enables the reader to understand a complex subject. There are many
kinds of science writing but good public science writing is good technical writing—concrete and
simple. I give you a definition of public science writing on the worksheet--“the best science
writing is clear, captivating, intelligent, provocative, imaginative, graceful, and funny when the
humor is natural”. Science writing must also be interesting. The audience has to want to read the
material. And then there are two other concerns in public science writing of which the author
must be mindful. First, the subject matter is often technical, and second science terrifies some
people.
To address the technical piece of this kind of writing: Do not skirt the difficult parts of the
subject. Talk to experts, study and learn the material well enough so that you can make
simplifications while maintaining the essential ideas. And come across honestly. Lay the
information out; don’t try to win the reader to your side, just give them the information—write all
sides of your topic, even what is difficult to read about, even what people disagree with; lay out
everything for your reader.
A strategy for dealing with the second challenge “the fear of science” is to portray the human side
of science. No matter how remote scientific subject matter is, readers only understand if they can
find a way into the difficult, even dense subject.
Topics
Students find a way through this assignment by thinking first of what interests them. One student
started a paper on glaciers in Glacier Park by telling of his visits when he was a child and moving
into today by telling of a trip with his own son and how the glaciers had receded. Then he moved
into the science of glaciers—charts, pictures—and text that described glaciers. His story is what
really pulled the reader through the paper.
Students who read the excerpt from Collapse often want to respond. I have had strong papers
from students who discuss logging in Montana—the science of logging—not the politics. These
students discuss fires/clear cuts/etc. often from a family business point of view as well as
stewards of the forests. The science is there…
The medical use of marijuana has made for good papers. The topic is current and exactly how the
drug affects certain maladies in humans can be discussed in a scientific way. The science for this
is current and comes from magazines.
Hunger in Missoula has been a topic. This topic took interviews from various Missoula based
organizations and was a solid paper. The topic must be current and not too large. Hunger in the
US is too big, but hunger in Missoula works as a topic.
A young woman from Seeley Lake wrote a solid paper about land use around her home. There
were many Forest Service documents that she could draw from and she interviewed her
neighbors.
I would love to see a good public science piece on the economy. I have had students try this topic
but not be successful. I think this would take some graphs and charts and really simple text. This
is an important topic and one that people would want to read if they could understand.
Organic food in Missoula and Montana has been a good topic. So has gardening in Montana—
lots of graphics in this.
Addictions can work, but you must tell the story quickly and move into the science of addictions.
I learned much about meth in Butte that I did not know. This topic has been written about a lot,
so you as the writer must come up with information that the reader doesn’t already know. Public
science writing must be current and worth reading.
The medical area holds much information that can be pursued. Diabetes and overweight children
can be topics, but you must get specific enough that readers want to read the material.
Sturgeons in the Missouri River was a strong paper. A student who spent summers counting and
tagging this fish wrote a good public science paper educating the class about this fish. He
included maps and charts and actual pictures of the fish. The animals/plants in rivers and lakes
that are taking over are good topics. Trout reintroduction.
No papers on wolves—there have been too many…..
The readings are examples of public science writing.
The Biology of Hope is a reading taken from The Best American Science Writing 2005 The
author is an M.D. who teaches and researches at Harvard Medical School. He has written several
books as well as writes for The New Republic, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and the
New York Times. He wrote the article you will read after asking what more he could do for
patients that he knew would soon die. He thought about the tests he had ordered and the
treatments he had initiated for these patients and finally thought perhaps he could give them hope.
He says, “I was both exhilarated and disturbed by the idea. Hope seemed powerful and vital, yet
fragile and possibly false. And so it can be.” The result is The Biology of Hope. This piece does
not skirt the difficult parts of science. You must be honest (which means you will be credible,
right?) with your reader.
Surface Waters and Underground Seas is a chapter from Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.
Carson wrote in the 60s and is still well read. She brought environmental concerns to the
American public in a way never before experienced. Her book led to changes in national
pesticide policy and the eventual creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. She received
awards for this after her death. She was a marine biologist and a writer and lived from 1907-
1964. She wrote a best seller in 1951 The Sea Around Us. Her writing is passionate and full of
facts.
Stripped for Parts by Jennifer Kahn comes from Wired magazine. She also writes for Harper’s
Magazine and National Geographic. She, too, is a scientist who has received awards and
fellowships relating to neuroscience.
Of Stripped for Parts she writes, “It was one of those stories that turn out to be dramatically
different from the original assignment. Basically, I’d been sent to find out what was new in the
world of transplant surgery: the stand ‘hooray for scientific progress’ tale. Instead, I was struck
by how fragile the organ recovery process was—it takes an extremely unusual set of
circumstances for someone to die in a way that allows their organs to be salvaged—and how
complex. Keeping a donor’s body going after brain death is a tricky task, and one that is usually
left out of transplant articles. In the end, the piece was quite controversial; there were a lot of
angry letters from people who accused me of discouraging donation. The truth is more complex,
I think, and my own experience certainly was. Nonetheless, I found the complicated, sometimes
unpleasant, details of organ recovery terribly compelling—an aspect of transplantation that not
many people seem to know about.”
This article is a favorite of mine. It is a compelling read; I couldn’t stop when I read it the first
time. Kahn truly gets at the complexity involved in organ donation and that is what makes this
piece good public science writing. It disturbs the reader and gives the reader new information.
Excellent piece!
Under Montana’s Big Sky is the first chapter of Jared Diamond’s book Collapse. Diamond is a
professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles. His scientific career began
in physiology and expanded into evolutionary biology and biogeography. He has received many
awards, including the Pulitzer Prize for his book Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Collapse is an account of the collapse of civilizations around the world. He sets up criteria by
which he judges civilizations: Easter Island, Rwanda, The Dominican Republic, Haiti,
Greenland, Maya, China….. The first chapter is about Montana and he uses Montana as a
question. Will this state collapse or thrive? He does not skirt difficult issues. I have had many
papers in response to his writing.
Definitions for Sustainability is also a piece of public science writing. This piece is written to try
and educate what the word sustainability means and where it came from. This piece is pertinent
because the word sustainability is a hot word right now and is misused much of the time. This is
a different kind of writing, but note the graphics and attempt to get to the bottom of the term.
Worksheet
After you have read all the readings, go to the worksheet and fill in what is requested for each
reading. #6 is the most important part of this worksheet. You will have developed a definition of
public science writing from these readings that will help you with your paper.
Then submit your topic with an outline, the rough draft and finally the final draft.
Public Science Essay
Assignment


Write a 6-8 page paper on a scientific topic approved by me.
Use writing, graphics, visual and design elements from Chapters 1, 2, and 3.


Refer to the assigned readings for examples of what public science writing can be – and
look like.
Cite your sources according to the Little, Brown Compact Handbook(LBCH), APA format.
You will need a list of your sources at the end of the paper. The LBCH begins APA
discussion on page 462 and gives you a sample paper on page 484. Model your
“References” list after page 487.
Public Science Writing

Definition: Public science writing is a form of technical writing—all the same rules
apply. The writer, assuming a novice audience, distills relevant, current scientific issues
or information for the layperson.

Purpose: The purpose of science writing is to enable a lay audience to understand
important current scientific issues or information (taken from a scientific journal, for
example).

Content: This writing explains why a lay audience needs to know particular relevant
scientific information and explains that information deductively, simplifying technical
jargon along the way.

Style/Tone: Style and tone should conform to technical writing standards. Writing
should be concise, gender neutral, free of jargon. (Return to the basics of Chapt. 1.)
The format can take many forms, as the assigned readings show. “Stripped for Parts”
came from Wired Magazine, so a journalistic style is perfectly acceptable. The
information must be solid, yet this paper is not written for experts on the topic.

Graphics/Design: As always, graphics and design should be used appropriately to ease
reader understanding. Emphatic features may also be incorporated. (Chapt. 3)

Audience focus: The paper should be written to a lay audience: the LCD (least
common denominator), or in other words, the person who would have the hardest time
understanding.
The writer must also explain the relevance of the paper to engage the audience. A
strong introduction and deductive format are essential to engage and inform the LCD.

Evidence: Specific details, stories and/or numbers from sources “talk” to prove points.

Sources: Sources must be credited both in the text and in a reference list according to
The Everyday Writer!

Remember: A good paper addresses why the information is important to the reader to
gain attention right away. Then it covers the who, what, where, when, and how. No
jargon. There are seldom second chances in this kind of writing.