Pages

Writing Assignments

There are a total of four writing assignments, which vary in terms of their genre, length, and complexity. They include: a critical review; a science essay for the general public; a prospectus for the science essay; and a proposal. Together, these assignments are designed to give you experience with different genres of scientific and technical writing and a foundation for eventually mastering the specific kinds of writing associated with your field and future profession.

“Main” writing assignments (250 words = ~1 page):

  1. A critical review (≥1250 words, to be revised)
  2. A prospectus for a science essay (≥250 words; to be revised if requested by instructor)
  3. A researched science essay for the general public (≥2250 words, to be revised)
  4. A proposal (≥1250 words, option for revising)

There will also be some informal in-class writing and responses to the readings.

Deadlines

First versions must be handed in by the due date. Revisions are due one week from the day you receive comments on the first version. All assignments must be completed in order to receive a passing grade in the course.

Oral Presentations

There will be one formal oral presentation. In addition, you may also have the opportunity to help lead a class discussion of an essay or article.

Conferences

MIT students were required to meet with the course instructor and/or the writing advisor, Louise Harrison Lepera, to discuss their work and progress in the class. Student were also strongly encouraged to meet with either the instructor or writing advisor to address questions or ideas about the writing assignments.

Resources

Writing with Sources (PDF)

Presenting Your Proposal: Guidelines for an Effective Presentation (PDF-1.4MB)

SES # TOPICS KEY DATES
1 Course overview & introductory questionnaire  
2

Background on Assignment #1

Discuss article on science museum

Assignment #1: A Critical Review of a Science Museum Exhibit assigned
3

Elements of critical review writing: Purpose, audience, content, structure and style

Discuss science museum reviews

 
4 In-class workshop on museum review assignment in progress:

  • Clarifying the purpose and audience of your review
  • Establishing the framework and focus
  • Organizing your main ideas

 
5

Examining other kinds of critical reviews in science

Discuss science book reviews

Assignment #1 due
6 Background on Assignments #2 and #3 Assignment #2: A Prospectus for a Science Essay & Assignment #3: A Researched Science Essay for the General Public assigned
7 General principles for writing about science for the general public: A mathematician’s perspective  
8 Researching your topic  
9 Discuss science essay  
10 Discuss science essay Assignment #2 due one day after Session 10
11 Using source material in your writing  
12 Discuss science essay  
13 Citing source material  
14 Illustrations in scientific & technical writing Assignment #3 due three days after Session 14
15 Writing workshop on science essays  
16 Background on Assignment #3 Assignment #4: A Proposal assigned
17 Topic workshop  
18 Absracts & budgets  
19 Writing workshop: Reviewing proposals Assignment #4 due three days after Session 19
20 Workshop on communicating through email  
21 Principles of effective public speaking  
22–25 Oral presentations  

SES # TOPICS READINGS
1 Course overview & introductory questionnaire Semper, Robert J. “Science Museums as Environments for Learning.” Physics Today 43, 11, 50 (1990).
2

Background on Assignment #1

Discuss article on science museum

Three science musuem reviews:

Parker, Kate. “From Chalk Pit to Treasure Trove.” IEE Review, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 159–160, July 15, 1999.

Rothstein, Edward. “Opening the Doors to the Life of Pi: Museum of Mathematics at Madison Square Park.” The New York Times. December 13, 2012.

The Museumist. “Exhibit Review: Harry Potter, at the Museum of Science and Industry.” July 15, 2009.

3

Elements of critical review writing: Purpose, audience, content, structure and style

Discuss science museum reviews

Three science book reviews:

Pinker, Steven. “The Known World.” The New York Times. May 27, 2007.

Eisenkraft, Arthur. “Book Review: Guesstimation: Solving the World’s Problems on the Back of a Cocktail Napkin.” American Journal of Physics 76, 887 (2008).

Bloch, Heinz P. “Book Review: Operator’s Guide to Centrifugal Pumps.” Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 116, no. 3 (2009).

4 In-class workshop on museum review assignment in progress:

  • Clarifying the purpose and audience of your review
  • Establishing the framework and focus
  • Organizing your main ideas

No assigned readings
5

Examining other kinds of critical reviews in science

Discuss science book reviews

No assigned readings
6 Background on Assignments #2 and #3 No assigned readings
7 General principles for writing about science for the general public: A mathematician’s perspective Gawande, Atul. “The Cancer-Cluster Myth.” The New Yorker. February 8, 1999.
8 Researching your topic Campbell, Thomas A., Skylar Tibbits and Banning Garrett. “The Programmable World.” Scientific American 311, no. 5 (2014): 60-65.
9 Discuss science essay No assigned readings
10 Discuss science essay Greene, Geoffrey L. and Peter Geltenbort. “The Neutron Enigma.” Scientific American 314, no. 4 (2016): 36-41.
11 Using source material in your writing No assigned readings
12 Discuss science essay No assigned readings
13 Citing source material No assigned readings
14 Illustrations in scientific & technical writing No assigned readings
15 Writing workshop on science essays No assigned readings
16 Background on Assignment #4 No assigned readings
17 Topic workshop No assigned readings
18 Absracts & Budgets No assigned readings
19 Writing workshop: Reviewing proposals No assigned readings
20 Workshop on communicating through email No assigned readings
21 Principles of effective public speaking No assigned readings
22–25 Oral Presentations No assigned readings

Course Meeting Times

Lectures: 2 sessions / week, 1.5 hours / session

Prerequisites

There are no prerequisites for this course.

Course Description

Proficiency in communicating about science and technology comes from both knowledge and practice, and this course emphasizes both. Through a variety of reading and writing assignments, we will examine general principles of good writing, as well as principles associated specifically with scientific and technical writing. We will also explore the effects of new media as avenues for communicating about science. To help you become more proficient in assessing, revising, and editing your writing, the course emphasizes the importance of the writing process—not just the final product. Class time will involve discussions of scientific articles and essays, as well as small group workshops in which you will offer feedback on each other’s writing. Assignments will include, for example, a personal science essay, a science essay for the general public, a research or service project proposal, and a review of a proposal. The topics you write on will generally be of your own choosing, reflecting your background and interests. While the primary emphasis will be on writing, oral communication will also be important in this class. You will have the opportunity to practice oral communication skills by participating in and leading class discussions, as well as through a formal presentation.

Texts

There are no required textbooks for this course. Required readings will consist of essays and articles that will be posted on the course website.

Reading Assignments

Coming to class prepared includes completing reading assignments on time. The readings provide important background for the topics we’ll be discussing and for the assignments you’ll be doing.

Grading

Grading will be according to the following distribution:

ACTIVITIES PERCENTAGES

Written work

70%
Oral presentation 15%
Attendance; preparation for and participation in class discussions 15%

I do not assign a grade to the first version of the critical review. However, the researched science essay for the general public will receive a grade for both the first version and revision (with greater weight given to the grade for the revision). For the proposal, you will receive a grade on the first version. If you opt to revise the paper, the grade you receive on the revision will replace the grade on the first version. The prospectus will be graded simply as “check” (approved) or “minus” (not approved). A “check” on the first version means you do not need to revise it. You must receive a “check” on either the first or revised version before proceeding to work on the science essay. On all papers, MIT students will receive extensive comments and suggestions for revisions from the instructor.

MIT students will also receive both a grade and written comments on the oral presentation of the proposal.

Course Info

Instructor
As Taught In
Spring 2017
Learning Resource Types
Written Assignments with Examples