Hi folks--
We've nearly reached the end of the semester--congratulations! I'm not going to throw an additional reading assignment at you now, but between now and the official end of the semester (next monday, if you can believe it!), I'd like us to continue to use the discussion board to "debrief" on the semester, particularly by discussing how the material that we've read and discussed thus far helps you, as writers, to wield the "authority" of science in your final projects (and more generally, how science writers relate to "authority"--a tricky but significant relationship, to be sure!)
Now is a great time to reconsider where we've been, what we're currently thinking about science in the public, and how it all applies to the projects that we're working on presently. Following up on some of the points made in the last two weeks' discussions of the CDC SARS FAQ, I've posted a new discussion prompt that presses you to delve into the issues of authority in public science a bit more deeply, and to relate it to your current projects.
Course Evaluations
One important housekeeping matter.
As I suspect you all know by now, every semester you're given the opportunity to evaluate each of your courses and instructors. As one of your instructors, I take your evaluations very seriously, using them to improve my teaching practices and modify future versions of my courses to suit course participants' needs. This is particularly true for a course like this semester's "Writing Public Science," since it's a relatively new course and, I believe, a somewhat different type of course than many offered through the tpc program--one that deals a bit with the "how-to" aspects of writing about science, but also (and probably more importantly) treats this topic as an occasion for broader types of reflection about issues of communication, science, public audiences, and our situation(s) as writers.
What I'm personally most interested in is your specific feedback about course assignments, lecture topics, the types of informal and formal responses that I have provided (so far!) on your work, and your other ideas about how to strengthen the course in future semesters. This type of feedback can be provided on the official course evaluation form (see below), by direct email or conversation with me, or both. If you wish to provide direct feedback to me in the form of an email or conversation, it's fine to wait until after grades have been submitted.
But, you should ALSO complete the university's official evaluation form! The University takes your evaluation of this course very seriously. It uses your responses to the official evaluation form to make decisions regarding faculty tenure and promotion, of course, but also to learn how well each department and program serves the needs of its students. (Translation: the TPC program looks bad if our "return rates" are poor, which they sometimes are with online courses since I don't have you all gathered captive in a brick-and-mortar classroom to administer the paper survey!)
So please take the time to complete the University's course evaluation for this course and your other online courses before Sunday, April 25 by clicking on the link below:
The course evaluation survey will appear as a link on your Onestop page. Your survey responses will be handled confidentially by the Office of Institutional Planning, Research, and Effectiveness. I will receive only a summary of the quantitative responses, along with any written comments that you provide.
Thanks!
Project 2 Q&A
Project 2's are due at the end of this week. I've received some questions about my expectations for the annotated bibliography, and, after responding to some of these questions individually, it occurred to me that others might also be wondering about related issues. With this in mind, I'm pasting here some of the material that I've sent to a couple folks individually. I welcome additional questions about these matters, too--there may be several legitimate ways to approach the project 2 assignment, and I'd be happy to discuss any approaches you're considering!
Q: Do you have a specific model in mind for the annotated bibliography assignment?
I don't have a specific model in mind, since it's conceivable that a few different approaches would work. What I'm asking you to produce is similar to a traditional annotated bibliography, except that you're also "annotating" some types of sources (conversations with experts, for instance) that don't traditionally belong in an annotated bibliography. To annotate these sources, you'll have to be creative. With that caveat, you're certainly welcome to draw from other models of annotated bibliographies (such as those you find online or in research journals), as long as the results fulfill the project requirements stated in the project 2 description.
Q: If you're not applying a single specific model, what criteria or standards will you apply?
Note that the project 2 description DOES provide some criteria for success--most importantly, it describes the objectives of the annotated bibliography. Consider these two sentences (both taken from the project 2 guidelines):
"The purpose of such a bibliography is twofold: to organize and document a researcher's own study of a topic, and to inform others about the intersections among the most current and/or significant literature on that topic."
"[Y]ou should digest the resources that you uncover, then use your annotations to show how each resource contributes to your topic."
Obviously, this project will be somewhat different from the typical published annotated bibliography insofar as you're encouraged to include annotations of material other than articles and books. For instance, you're encouraged to include "annotations" (or descriptive summaries) of product brochures, site visits, artifacts, and interviews with SME's--essentially, whatever useful items appear in your research notebook at the end of your explorations!
But the two passages quoted above emphasize that you're not ONLY describing these items in abstract terms; you're also supposed to interpret them, to pick out the interesting connections among them, to discuss how they contribute to your inquiry--essentially, to "process" them mentally, in whatever ways are useful, so that you are able to explain their significance to your topic and goals.
Q: Sure, sure...it's up to me...I get it! But
give me ONE sample organization, just in case I'm stumped:
Here's a basic organization that I recommend (but you can be flexible--if another
pattern works better for your material, use it):
Part 1: Introduction
Describe your topic and research task (key questions or problems you're exploring).
Lay out the "field" or "fields" you're excavating, and overview the main directions of your research (e.g., if you collected three main types of research, or if you dug up material on two separate "topics" that relate to your interests, then say so.)
Tell the reader how the rest of your annotated bib will be organized (i.e., the traditional "forecast" or "advance organizer" at the end of an introduction).
Part 2: Body
Individual entries for each research source collected and used. A typical format
for each item is to start with the CITATION, then follow with a concise paragraph
or three that highlights the key features of the item ("key" meaning
"most relevant to your topic and task").
The entries may be arranged in whatever order makes the most sense--probably in topical categories, but other orders may also suit (e.g., according to type or genre; according to source; according to "pro" vs. "con" perspective).
The body may use subsections, headings, or other organization tools, as you see fit. (Don't use nondescriptive headings like "Body" or "Annotations." Instead, use descriptive headings that truly communicate the substance of the material within the section.)
Part 3: Conclusion
Now that you've "digested" all your sources, what insights can be
drawn from this body of material as a whole? What can we say about the topic
or problem that originally motivated your research? What can we say about the
"status" of this material as an emerging body of work or thought?
Are there still areas to be studied? Do new research questions emerge from this
material--questions that may not have been detectable if you hadn't digested
this material in the way that you did? You can use the conclusion to tackle
any or all of these questions.
It's appropriate (though not always necessary) to use subsections within the conclusion--let the material itself guide you. For instance, if there are clearly three main things that you feel compelled to discuss in your conclusion, then you should probably use three subsections. But if they're just three relatively simple and closely-related points, then named subsections might be overkill. As always, use your judgment as a writer.
Discussion and reading
The main task for this week, I realize, is to finish the project 2 annotated bibliographies. But as you do that, let's also continue with the online discussion. In the next couple weeks, I'd like for us to discuss two issues that will certainly influence how you create your final projects: the notion of "genres" in public science and the related concept of "authority"--the authority of "science" itself, but more importantly, the authority of communicators who use science to influence the public.
To help us think about these issues, I've posted a sample text to this week's calendar. The text is something that an ECU administrator sent around to all faculty who were involved in study abroad programs last year (myself included); moreover, we were asked to distribute the message to students participating in our trips. Though the message came most directly from the administrator in charge of ECU study abroad, it was created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the wake of all the anxiety about last year's SARS epidemic.
The document is the the CDC SARS FAQ (forgive me--I just had to use the acronyms!). It's a message that
In short, this document is just the sort of thing that our course is all about--it's a document that doesn't qualify as "pure" science or "pure" anything else--it reaches across all the specialized boundaries (science vs. nonscience; specialist vs. lay; research vs. practice; informative vs. persuasive) that we could imagine imposing upon communication.
I'd like for us to spend some time analyzing this document (and the rhetorical situation in which it was used), applying all the analytical tools that we've developed so far in the course: the "accommodating science" perspective, certainly, but also our earlier discussions about genre, purpose, audience, and so on. How does this document function as science communication? How does it function in relation to University programs or even policy? How about as a manifestations of government (since it's the same document that one would have found on the CDC website when the SARS outbreak occurred)? And, based upon your analysis of this document, how do you think the document was intended to function--what's the writer trying to accomplish, and how, and why? What genre of writing is this? What other genres could have been used (by CDC, by ECU administrators, or by others) to inform people about SARS?
I used this same document last year, in the midst of the SARS crisis, and it generated lively discussion, though of course much of that discussion owed to the intensity of everyone's concerns about SARS at the time. I'm curious to see how one year's distance from the occasion of the message will change our analysis. So: go to it!
Welcome back from break (to those of you who got one)!
I'm really impressed by the amount of discussion that took place last week, even though technically we had the week off--nice work. I posted a news update just before break (see below: 12 March), but because of an email error on my part, I'm not certain that the *announcement* of that update reached everyone; my apologies for the error. In any case, the gist of the message was to announce the plan for THIS week, week 11, in case anyone wanted to use the break week to jump ahead--and it appears that many of you have been making good progress on your research, so maybe you didn't need my encouragement on that point anyway.
As you'll see in last week's news update, I've posted two new "Week 11" discussion prompts in preparation for a discussion of this week's reading--a terrific article by one of the field's best scholars, Jeanne Fahnestock, plus the accompanying lecture on "Adaptation Strategies and Rhetorical Appeals" by me.
Though I'll be out of town for the week (attending the meetings of the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing and the Conference on College Composition and Communication), I'll be available by email--don't hesitate to contact me with questions or problems. And enjoy the Fahnestock article!
Break week
Next week is ECU's spring break. I'll be in town and on email for most of the week, so you're welcome to contact me if you need additional feedback on your project or your research process.
I also encourage you to post to the discussion board to solicit feedback from classmates. Participation in discussion has tapered off a bit this past week, which is understandable since you're all probably knee deep in sources for your projects. But let's not neglect the pleasures of sharing; you don't need to post a message every time you uncover a new source, but we'd all benefit from hearing about the different kinds of sources that you're working with (not to mention the problems you may be encountering as you attempt to locate or interpret those sources)!
Looking ahead: discussion of week 11 article and lecture
I have made some changes to the schedule for the next couple weeks. Specifically, I moved up the week 12 material (a lecture and article on audience accommodation) to week 11. For most of week 11, I'll be attending the ATTW and CCCC conferences in San Antonio, but I'll do my best to follow along with the discussion while I'm away.
I encourage you to read the week 11 material and to start discussing this material even sooner than week 11--the article is not especially long, but some of it is a bit dense, particularly for those unfamiliar with rhetorical theory. The reading is an important piece in the rhetoric of science, Jeanne Fahnestock's "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts," first published in 1986 but recently (1998) reprinted in the version that I have posted here. (This version is also available through the library's electronic database; I provide it as a downloadable file here merely to make your lives easier.)
Between now and the end of Week 11, I expect that much of the discussion will focus on issues related to your work with research sources, as we've been discussing in the past couple weeks. But, by the middle of week 11, I'd like everybody to have read the Fahnestock article so that we can use the discussion forum to consider some of the article's arguments and implications. This article will, I think, be well worth our time; it speaks quite directly to the issues that you'll be facing as you work on your project, but it also speaks to the broader issues of science communication that were raised earlier in the semester.
The Fahnestock article is also a reasonably effective entry into some important principles of rhetorical theory for those of you who haven't had an opportunity to explore this terrain. The article isn't primarily designed to teach rhetorical theory, but Fahnestock does better than most writers to explain some of the concepts that are familiar to many rhetorical scholars but not so familiar to folks new to the field.
Project proposals
I'm glad that folks have begun thinking about specific project ideas, and I encourage you to contact me with proposals, however tentative, anytime this week or next. Note that I have amended the deadline for sending me your proposals; the deadline had been February 27, and I have now moved it back to next Friday, March 5 since I was unable to communicate with you over the past several days.
However, you should not wait until next week to begin communicating about your project ideas. In addition to sending your proposal to me directly, please post your proposals to the discussion board , the sooner the better (I've created a forum for these posts)--both so that we can see what range of projects is possible, and so that more (and more creative) heads than mine are available to provide feedback.
Please help each other to articulate project ideas, to imagine potential resources to track down, and to clarify the rhetorical situation (audience and purpose) of the proposed plans.
You're welcome--in fact, encouraged--to develop a project that's related to a subject that you're already familiar with--in other words, you needn't pick something new. For instance, people who have worked in medical settings are welcome to pick a medical topic (e.g., a patient information packet on a specific disease). The "novelty" of your project may instead be *how* you work with the material, whom you write it for, or some other dimension of the project. Of course, it's fine if you pick a topic that's new to you--you just don't have to, as long as whatever you pick meets the requirements laid out in the project 3 guidelines.
In addition to helping each other with project proposals, I hope that you'll help each other to think creatively about resource avenues. For instance, if you know of an expert on someone's topic, suggest the person as an interview source. While much of your research sources may take the form of written documents, you should not limit yourself to published research--interviews, public documents (e.g., samples of the genre that you'll work in), television and radio broadcasts, and other sources are all worth exploring. (See the project 2 guidelines for more information on how I'm asking you to represent such sources.)
Week 6 readings and discussion
This week we have a short lecture and a short reading (both on the calendar), but nothing from the textbook so that you'll have time to work on your project 1 papers. The reading resonates with some of the points raised in recent discussions, and it also should relate to your book review projects.
In light of that connection, I'd like folks to try to post at least a couple times to the discussion board this week. The official "topics" of discussion this week, according to the calendar, are "popular science books and topics for projects two and three," but in reality I see it as a transition week: you're wrapping up your book projects, and now that you're working on the paper, you're probably coming to a fuller understanding of your book's contributions to public science (for whatever purpose and in whatever modes it tries to contribute). You've also read Lewenstein and Gregory and Miller, which hopefully has helped you to contextualize science books as potential contributors to scientific discourse in the public sphere (even if you don't necessarily accept all that Lewenstein and Gregory and Miller and I have argued so far). I'd like to use the discussion board this week to "capture" some your insights into your books' contributions. Ideally, although you may be writing about *one* book in your project 1 documents, in our discussion we should collectively be able to use each of the one books to draw some conclusions about the bigger picture--not only what science books collectively contribute, but also what differences may exist among books, their purposes, their techniques, and their readers.
As for starting to consider project 2 topics, we'll hold off on any formal discussion of that matter until after Friday, though you're welcome to begin speculating earlier.
Project 1 completion
As you know, the project 1 papers are due at the end of the week unless you and I have arranged an extension. If you need an extension, be sure to talk to me about it before Friday.
When I receive a paper or an extension request, I do my best to reply quickly with confirmation. If you have sent me your paper (or extension request) and I have not confirmed receipt within a day, let me know--I probably got your paper, but it's a good idea to check!
From what I've seen on the discussion board, it sounds like you're all making good progress on the project 1 books--sounds like most everyone's done reading their books, in fact! Here's the news for the coming week.
Discussion prompter schedule
If you haven't done so already, visit the course calendar to see when you're scheduled as "discussion prompter." Review the details of that role in the project 4 description, but also see the notes below:
Week five discussion of popular science books
I want to thank everyone for once again making the discussion so successful--even better, in my view, than the discussion in most of the face-to-face class discussions I've experienced! I'm really pleased not only with the number of posts, but the insightfulness of many of the comments you've made and the interactivity of much of the discussion.
In the discussion so far, people have discussed what they liked about the books, and some have also begun to draw some conclusions about what textual/rhetorical/stylistic features of their book make it work or not work. I'm even beginning to see connections made between books and between a book and its "social context" (for lack of a better term)--that is, what role it may have played in a broader debate occurring in the world.
In week five, let's carry that discussion further by drawing some conclusons about the role of public science books in these broader debates, whether cultural, political, or intellectual. One of the theses of this course, I suppose, is that public science writing is both a symptom of broader cultural attitudes toward science, and at the same time, a shaper of those attitudes. So we should be able to look at a science book (or group of them) and learn from it something about the role that science plays in the culture (does it function as entertainment? does it function as commerce? does it function as religion?) Then, considering things from the reverse angle, we should also be able to read an expression of science (e.g., a book that communicates scientific content) through our understanding of culture in order to understand how science can best be communicated in that culture. (For instance, given our knowledge of American culture, why would "science-as-adventure-story" be an effective way to communicate about science? What goal(s) does this form of communication accomplish? It's relatively easy to use our "tacit" knowledge of our culture as a lens for understanding a book. I'd like you to try doing the reverse as well: that is, look for ways in which you can USE YOUR BOOK as a lens for understanding the culture in which the book operates. (And, of course, if you can point to specifics in your book, so much the better!)
I'm also interested in seeing some greater connections between the project 1 books and some of the more challenging claims developed by Gregory and Martin. It's a thought-provoking text, intended to challenge our conventional views of the relationship between science and the public. What do you think, for instance, of the authors' notion that maybe the public doesn't need to have access to scientific knowledge (not necessarily the authors' stance, but they offer it as one position that scholars and even scientists themselves may adopt)? Does your book shed any light on this debate--does it model the kind of public science communication that concerned scientists might be wary of ("this gives the public too much insight into the process of science"), or is it an example of "fluff science"--the pablum that it's okay to give the public, since it falls short of the "real stuff"? Or does your book call attention to flaws in the whole debate about what the public should and shouldn't be told?
And how about Gregory and Martin's discussion of the multiple "theories of communication" that we could use to make sense of the intercourse between science and the public? What communication model do you suppose your author has adopted (implicitly or explicitly)? What leads you to this impression? Does the writer "name" her audience or define the audience's characteristics? Who's being talked to in this book, and does the author attempt to "interact" with the reader or simply force-feed information to a passive reader? How do you know? What features of the text signal these things to you (its organization? style? specific statements of purpose?)?
Discussion of any of these topics will not only advance our understanding of the relationships between science, the public, and the communication process; it will also help folks to plan their approach to the project one paper.
Project 1 tips
I also suspect that you're all beginning to think about project one, if you haven't already started to work on it. If, after reviewing the assignment, you still have questions about how to approach the paper, don't hesitate to ask me for clarification! If questions come in that seem relevant to others in the class, I'll broadcast my responses.
The official deadline for project one is 20 February. See below for a few tips for completing the assignment.
Samples. I hesitate to provide too many project samples, since I'm looking for you to work through the project task on your own rather than simply follow an existing model; part of the challenge of the assignment is judging what's worth saying in your review, and models can sometimes overdetermine a writer's response to a task. However, I've decided that I will make at least one model available to demonstrate one more or less successful response to this assignment. Click here for access to an online version of a project 1 document from last spring.
If you're having trouble figuring out how to approach the assignment, I also recommend that you look at published book reviews, which do not exactly replicate what I'm asking you to produce, but which at least demonstrate a writer's technique for setting up a book for readers unfamiliar with it. You can find hundreds of popular science book reviews (some good, many bad) in the library, at the bookstore, or online. Here are a few places to start looking (but see my comments below, too):
And here are some direct links to good sample book reviews at these sites:
Blum, Love at Goon Park. Review in Salon magazine (13 Nov
02) at
[ http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2002/11/13/blum/]
Review of the same book in New York Times (2 Feb 03) at
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/books/review/02SMUTST.html?
ex=1045281913&ei=1&en=2002502caaf6bdee ]
Description vs. analysis. A couple criticisms
of these reviews. They're strong on description/synopsis of the books (which
is a good thing), but weaker on critical analysis. For the purposes of this
assignment, I expect you to delve more deeply into some of the themes that our
course readings and online discussions have raised: what is the book's intended
relation to its readers, what model of "public science" does the author seem
to hold, what will readers make of the information, and so forth. These do not
need to be your exclusive foci--and certainly you should provide good descriptive
detail as well--but push further than the merely descriptive.
Length and Depth. This comment is applicable
to all the papers you will write this semester, not just paper one. The syllabus
guidelines indicate that you are "restricted to 2000 words [which
is about 5 pages], serif 11 point type, space and a half, one inch margins
(unless otherwise indicated)." This is an upper-limit restriction--partly
designed to make your lives easier, but also to emphasize the importance of
conciseness...in professional writing, "more" does not always mean
"better."
I have not imposed an official lower limit on paper length, and I will not alter your grade merely because you submit a short paper. HOWEVER, in my experience, projects that fall far short of the recommended length are almost always less well developed than they should be. Use the 2000-word mark as a benchmark to help you decide whether you've delved deeply enough into your topic. If you write a solid, 3000-word draft, then revise for conciseness and wind up with a strong, streamlined 1750 words, you're probably in good shape. On the other hand, if you're falling well below the 2000 word mark, that may be a sign that you have not achieved sufficient depth in your analysis. My point: word length is not significant per se, but it is a good indicator of sufficiency! (It goes without saying, I hope, that if you write a 500-word paper, then fluff it up to 2000 words merely to achieve the target length, the results won't be good!)
Extensions
I'm more than willing to grant project extensions IF you ask me for an extension at least one day in advance!
Welcome to week three, and thanks for the excellent discussion participation in week two! I've posted a new prompt for this week's online discussion on "Audience (and other) roles in scientific communication," which bridges nicely to some of the comments made in the past week or so.
This is a heavy reading week, especially for those who are just now getting their copies of the Gregory and Miller text (by now I assume that everyone has gotten their copy). By the end of this week, you'll need to have caught up with last week's reading (Ch. 1 and 2) and read the week three course lecture on audience. You should also have begun (at least) your project 1 popular science book, which we'll begin to discuss near the end of next week.
This week's reading assignment is Gregory and Miller, chapters 4 and 5. Aim to finish that reading by next Monday or Tuesday at the latest--Chapter 4 closely connects to the week 3 "audience" lecture, so the earlier you read the chapter, the better off you'll be. (Our discussion of "audience" issues will carry over into next week, but don't wait until then to begin participating!)
Very shortly, I'll update the course calendar with discussion prompter assignments; check back soon!
Thanks for posting your introductions this past week--we have a great mix of characters and interests this semester, and I hope we'll be able to draw on the group's diversity in discussions throughout the term!
Here's the news for week two:
Project One Book Choices: select and post
I've gotten emails from everybody about project one book choices; it's a good list, and I look forward to a great discussion of these books over the next few weeks. If you haven't done so already, be sure to take the time to read what others have selected.
Week two reading assignment and course "lecture"
On the course calendar, you'll see that I have posted a brief course "lecture" as well as the week two reading assignment. The term "lecture" is a misnomer--it's simply a bit of information to help orient you to the course readings by raising some themes that I'd like you to think about. Sometimes the lectures will be more formal and elaborate, sometimes less.
I assume that everybody has purchased the course text, Gregory and Miller's Science in Public, by now. (I understand that a couple folks are waiting for their book to arrive in the mail; if yours is destined to arrive later than the end of this week, let me know--although I can't do this every week, in a pinch I may be able to scan a copy of the first two chapters' reading and fax it to you.) The main reading assignment for the week is taken from this book. I expect you to complete the assigned reading during the week that the reading is assigned. What I recommend, however, is that you attempt to complete the reading assignment early in the week.
The readings will generally complement the online course discussions, so it is appropriate to be reading and discussing simultaneously--in other words, you do not need to wait until the reading is completed to start participating in discussion.
First scheduled discussion starts Tuesday
This week we'll have our first scheduled discussion--the topic is, "Where do we cross paths with science?" Since this is the first discussion, I'll start things off by posting some discussion prompts. You know, from having read the project 4 "Discussion Board" assignment, that I'm placing a great deal of importance on class discussions this semester, so please contribute vigorously, creatively, and often! Also, I hope that folks will respond to each other, not just to my discussion prompts--the prompts are designed to begin the conversation by providing everyone with a common starting point, but if all goes well we should leave behind the initial prompts rather quickly!
NOTE about the "Discussion Prompter" role: Because this is our first discussion (and because I haven't solicited a volunteer to serve this week), we won't have someone serve officially in the "discussion prompter" role described in the project 4 overview. If you would like to volunteer for a particular upcoming week, please send me an email indicating your preference and I'll start a schedule. (No promises that I'll be able to accommodate every schedule request, but if there's a week that you know you won't be able to facilitate discussion, I'll avoid scheduling you for that week.)
Project 1 book choices
I've received messages from several of you so far regarding your project one
book choices--it's a great list! I've created a "project 1 books"
forum on the course discussion board; please post a message to that forum describing
the book that you've chosen and your reasons for choosing it. (My discussion
prompt at the head of that forum explains what I'd like you to say in more detail.)
Presumably, nobody is very far into these books yet, nor should you be--we have
a couple weeks to read them. What I'd like you to consider at this point, however,
is what draws us to particular topics or perspectives or figures in science.
By sharing our book choices BEFORE we know much about how the books will turn
out, I'm guessing that we can begin to develop a perspective on our motivations
as "consumers" of information about science. (This topic will recur
in the coming weeks.) So, for now, tell everyone what book you've picked, and
read others' explanations of what they've chosen and why.
Textbook
As you see on our course calendar, the first reading from the textbook, Science
in Public, is due next week. So be sure to have purchased the
book by early next week. If you're having any problems finding it, notify me
ASAP so that I can help you to find a copy.
Course emails
I've received secondary email addresses from nearly everyone; I'll do my best
to send out full-course messages to *all* of the addresses that I've received,
but continue to check the course "News" page from time to time, since
I generally post announcements there as well.
When you send me a course-related message, please begin the subject line with
our course number, 7750. I use the subject line to auto-sort course-related
email messages, so using 7750 at the beginning of your subject line will ensure
that I receive and respond to your messages efficiently. Thanks!
Happy New Year, and welcome to ENGL 7750, Writing Public Science! Although our course doesn't actually start until next week (Monday, 12 Jan 03), I'm contacting you now to provide some start-up information.
TPC program startup
By now you have received Dr. Southard's message about tpc program start-up materials (07 Jan 04; "ss ECU tpc programs: Spring 2004 classes about to begin!"), so I won't repeat that general information here (but I will encourage you to follow the steps indicated in that message).
Course website
I have posted an all-but-complete version of the course web site, which you're welcome to visit in preparation for the semester. You will find a link to the 7750 site at my index page: < http://core.ecu.edu/engl/henzeb >.
Email addresses
Because many folks have multiple email addresses, I will do my best to use the most up-to-date email addresses that you provide for me. But I will also generally send whole-class messages to your ECU account to ensure that all messages reach you in at least one account. If you're concerned that you are not receiving course-related messages in your preferred account, check your ECU account--and notify me if there is a problem. You'll also find that most full-class messages will appear on the course "News" page as well: < http://core.ecu.edu/engl/henzeb/7750spring2004/7750watnew.htm >.
Course texts
You will need to purchase two books for this course:
Gregory, Jane and Steve Miller. Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. New York: Perseus/HarperCollins, 1998. ISBN #: 0-7382-0357-2. Available at the ECU Campus Bookstore, which will ship it to you if you're not local. You will also find this book at < http://AddAll.com > or other online booksellers (use the ISBN number to search). Note that the first reading assignment from this book should be completed by Week 2 (January 19), so there's time to get the book by mail order.
One popular science book of your choice (and approved by me). This second required book is going to be used for our first major project, in which we consider how science is adapted for public consumption. See the project 1 instructions, where I provide specific criteria that you can use to choose a good book. I also offer a list of prospects, though you are not limited to that list!
You should purchase the Gregory and Miller book as soon as possible--particularly if you need to order it (but even if you're going to buy it at the ECU bookstore, since they never order enough copies!) You should choose a book for the project 1 assignment within the next several days as well, so that you'll have time to consider the many available options and then approve your choice with me. Once your choice is approved, you're welcome to start reading!
Again, welcome to the course--I look forward to working with you this semester.
Here's where you will find ALL changes in course materials documented. Visit often!
End of Page
Last Modified: