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):
- A critical review (≥1250 words, to be revised)
- A prospectus for a science essay (≥250 words; to be revised if requested by instructor)
- A researched science essay for the general public (≥2250 words, to be revised)
- 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
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:
|
|
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:
|
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.