Assignments

ASSIGNMENTS	DUE DATES
‘In the Frame’ Description	Session 4
Rhetorical Analysis of a News Article On your assigned date, you will co-lead a 10-15 min class discussion with a classmate, and submit an individually-written rhetorical analysis essay	Roving deadline: students signed-up for a date to co-lead a class discussion
Draft of An Engaging Translation Assignment Session 11: Peer-Review Workshop: An Engaging Translation Assignment	Session 10
Revised Engaging Translation Assignment Deliver a 2 min presentation summarizing your translation of one item of complexity, including brief discussion of your translation process	Session 13
Draft of The “Awesome” Profile Assignment Strategies for Interviewing Strangers Session 18: Peer-Review Workshop: The “Awesome” Profile Assignment	Session 17
Revised “Awesome” Profile Assignment Deliver a 1-2 min summary introduction (no slides) of your profiled person to the class	Session 19
Proposal for Investigative Research Article	Session 20
2-3 PowerPoint slides, one of which should be a central original image Present 3-5 min and field questions from your audience	Sessions 24 & 25
Revision of Investigative Research Article	Session 26

Resources

Library Guide

PowerPoint Presentation Tips (PDF)

Tips for Leading Discussions

Sample student work (Courtesy of Lillian Zhang and used with permission.)

Rhetorical Analysis of Cities at Your Feet (PDF)

The “Awesome” Profile: Coming Together, Going Forward (PDF)

Due Session 4

Purpose: As we read in Roger Rosenblatt’s essay “The Desire to Tell a Story,” a courtroom trial largely consists of competing descriptions of events, places, and people. Similarly, effective science articles describe unfamiliar subjects in accessible and deliberate ways to engage the public and shape their perspective. This experiment is your opportunity to describe an object, person, or place clearly and persuasively for your readers, and then learn firsthand how your audience interprets your writing. Analysis will be a necessary component of assignments later in the semester, but first it is important to be able to present meaningful details in a precise, accessible, and intentional manner.

Part 1. Description

Describe any thing you want. The object, person, or place you describe does not need to be related to science or technology. However, you should experience the object/person/place of your description shortly before or even during your writing process, rather than describe something from memory alone (i.e. do not describe an object or place from your childhood). Real-time descriptive writing will enable you to discover and select more meaningful details about your subject.

Your description should remain ‘inside the frame’—focused on the subject in its present state. For example, if you are describing a scene at a concert, your description should not stray ‘beyond the frame’ by discussing the history of the band, venue, or city. Instead, your description should focus on your immediate focal point, such as an aspect of the building, a musician, or a member of the audience. Remember, the thing you describe also contains you—your sensory details. Communicating sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch can help convey your perspective.

You description should include the following:

Intentional naming convention(s)
Moments of comparison (metaphor, simile)
At least two sensory observations (sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch)
A meaningful title for your description, which presents your reader with a first impression of the subject.

Audience: Your audience consists of your fellow classmates and teacher: an educated and diverse group that is not familiar with the object/place/person that you have chosen to describe. Therefore, you must produce an engaging and accessible description that enables the audience to experience the object through your words.

Format: Your description should be brief (around 250-500 words), single-spaced. Bring a printed copy for your partner to read in class on Session 3. Before you print your description, re-read your writing, preferably aloud, to detect ideas that need to be tightened and/or reorganized for clarity.

Part 2. Reflection

Here’s where your description becomes an experiment: One of your classmates will read your work in class and attempt to draw the thing you have described. Your classmate will also share their impression (i.e. perspective) of the thing you’ve described based on your rhetorical choices (e.g. naming conventions, word choice, scope of description, use of metaphor).

The second half of the class will comprise a discussion of the results, observations, and reactions to this experiment. Be sure to listen carefully to how your reader views the object you have described, and take notes on their interpretations. Some questions to consider in preparation for our in-class discussion include:

What is the overall impression of the object/person/place you attempted to generate within the reader? (Remember that all descriptions are persuasive)
Why did you use a certain adjective(s)?
Why did you begin the description the way you did? (What was the immediate focus and scope, and why?)
Why did you choose to create a particular comparison?
What did you notice about this object/person/place through close observation that you might not have otherwise seen?
What were some of the challenges of this assignment (both the writing and drawing components)?
What was confusing about the description you read?
How did your reader respond to and interpret your descriptions?
Was there any disconnect (or moments of difference) between your intentions and how the reader interpreted your description?
Were there moments of alignment?

For the questions above:

“Why?” = “What is the desired impact on the reader?”

It’s all about the audience!

When you contribute to the in-class discussion, be prepared to reference specific examples from the description you authored as well as your partner’s description. Sharing specific moments from the descriptions will enable the discussion to be grounded in tangible moments within the texts, rather than vague impressions.

Purpose: Peer-reviewed journal articles enable researchers to communicate new developments with other scientists. Accordingly, these articles are filled with terms, processes, concepts, and images that are confusing, intimidating, and inaccessible to many audiences, especially the public. The goal of this assignment is to translate instances of complexity within a peer-reviewed journal article, in order to educate the public with accurate, accessible, and engaging explanations.

In this assignment you will translate two items of complexity—an item of complexity could be any term, concept, procedure, or piece of equipment referenced within your selected journal article. You may even choose to translate a term that seems familiar (e.g. “autonomous”), but becomes unfamiliar or assumes a different meaning in the context of a particular scientific field.

Since you are selecting two items of complexity from anywhere within a single peer-reviewed journal article (e.g. one item could be from the Methods section, another item from the Results section of the article), the text you produce for this assignment does not need to be a single cohesive article. Instead, your document will likely be two individual articles—one for each item. This collection of explanations simulates the critical process of self-education during the research stage of science writing. Moreover, this assignment encourages you to begin thinking of how you might translate complex information for the public.

Tips and Additional Guidelines: Rather than write single-sentence definitions or bulleted lists of information in each section, craft a narrative for each item that includes the following:

Utilize metaphor to enhance your reader’s interest and understanding of a key scientific concept, term, procedure, or piece of equipment;
Situate the item in a larger context (i.e. the “real” world or field beyond the specific paper); and
Help the reader follow the logic of your explanations with clear organization and transitions.

Working with Outside Sources: In order to understand the two complex items in the peer-reviewed journal article, you will need to conduct background research. To be transparent and trustworthy with your audience, your text must include in-text citations for all ideas and information that you gathered from outside sources, as well as a Works Cited list at the end of the document. These citations will allow your classmates and me to see the intellectual paths you took in your quest to understand the items described in your text. Note: Wikipedia may be a useful starting place, but you’ll need to dig into the actual sources that are referenced within the Wikipedia article to evaluate their trustworthiness, as well as to learn more about the items you’ve selected.

Audience: You are writing for the general public. Your readers are unfamiliar with the terms and subject area being reported. Accordingly, your writing should be lay-friendly, engaging, and communicate the meaning of the information that you report. Why should your audience be interested in your items?

Form: State the full journal article title and citation information at the top of the document. The text can then be divided into two numbered sections, one for each item of complexity (e.g. “1. Microbial reduction”).

Upload the document on the class website in the following format:

MS Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf)
1”X1” margins
Size 12 Times New Roman font
Single-spaced text
700-900 words total (1.25-1.75pgs, single-spaced)
In-text citations and a Works Cited list
Page numbers

Helpful Tips:

Review your notes from the library session so that you can find and access a peer-reviewed article through the online databases.
Read articles and press releases of recently published studies to see how others have explained complex terms and concepts.
Write a narrative rather than a list of facts for each term you define.
Remember that you cannot share all of the information you learn with the reader, so consider what you would need to know as a reader to grasp each item of complexity.
Before you submit your draft, re-read your writing aloud to detect ideas that need to be tightened and/or reorganized for clarity.

Due Dates:

Upload your draft before class on Session 10.
Peer-review workshop will be held on Session 11.
Upload your revised text before class on Session 13.

In 21W.035, we explore the ways in which we communicate effectively, meaningfully, and persuasively. We discuss the ways in which elements of a rhetorical situation—purpose, audience, context, and form—play a role in the production and reception of written communication. As you craft your final article, refer back to your notes, and think about the issues that stick out in your mind from our class discussions and communication experiments. This is your opportunity to demonstrate the rhetorical knowledge and awareness that you have gained throughout the semester.

Context: Your investigative research article will be published in a widely read science magazine, such as New Scientist or Discover. Accordingly, your article should be lay-friendly, in-depth, visually appealing, and communicate the context and meaning of the information that you share.

Purpose: Thoroughly investigate and educate your audience about a complex issue involving science, medicine, and/or technology. Choose a topic that you are very curious about, perhaps something you find “awesome” or even awesomely confusing. The article should be driven by a central research question that motivates the project. For example, rather than merely trying to answer the question, “how does “hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) work?” the article could be driven by a more thoughtful and nuanced question, such as, “Does there exist consensus among scientists regarding the environmental impacts of fracking? If not, why not? If so, how have scientific findings shaped the debate over fracking?” In answering this more complex central question, the article would need to briefly explain how fracking works, and delve into deeper issues involving scientific data (published research) and the role of scientific information in shaping support for and opposition to fracking.

Your article should have a thesis—an answer to your central research question. Keep in mind that your thesis, or central claim, does not need to be a “yes” or “no” type of position. Oftentimes, researching a topic reveals more nuance and loose ends about the issue. As a result of the reading, writing, and contemplating you will do, your thesis could re-frame the issue, and pose new questions as a way of moving the discussion forward.

Working with Outside Sources: Importantly, be sure to describe any uncertainty or areas of conflict that you uncover within the sources you read. Rather than striving for consensus among your sources, identifying multiple perspectives of an issue will supply the reader with a comprehensive understanding. Amongst all of the outside sources you introduce, remember that your perspective matters too. Your audience will want to know what you think after conducting your research. By acknowledging and countering opposing viewpoints, you will demonstrate your confidence and ability to support your own position with evidence.

Audience: You are writing for a segment of the general population that has a general interest in science, though not necessarily a strong interest, understanding, or even awareness of your specific topic. Remember that your audience does not need to read your article. Indeed, they have many other articles, events, and distractions to choose from. You must try to capture and sustain the attention of the audience while accurately educating them. Why should they read your article? Why does the information you are sharing matter?

Since your readers are unfamiliar with the complex subject area under discussion, be as precise and accessible as possible. Readers will also expect to hear your own thoughts on your chosen topic, which you can do, in part, by the way you arrange your discussion, including what you emphasize, and how you link ideas in transitions (e.g. “While this poses a challenge, many researchers seem to believe that the challenge is well worth solving.”) Clear descriptions, accessible terminology, and logical organization are necessary.

Form: The essay can be 2200 words maximum. Additional requirements include:

The project must contain at least five sources, one of which should be an interview.
The article must contain at least two images, one of which must be original.
In-text citations (APA format) should be included throughout the article, with a final Works Cited list at the end.

Due Dates:

Session 20: Upload your project proposal (see template) to the class website before class.
Session 24: Send instructor 2-3 PowerPoint slides, one of which should an original image, before class.
Sessions 24 & 25: Deliver a 3-5min presentation to share the key aspects of your project to-date, and field questions about your research.
Session 26: Upload your final essay as a PDF to the class website before class.

Tips for the presentation: Rehearsing out loud and in front of an audience will be critical to ensure that you remain within the time limit without rushing through too much material. You will only be able to share the most important parts of your research with your audience. Since this presentation is in lieu of an in-class peer-review workshop, the goal is to test the clarity of your explanations and get as much feedback as possible from your audience to help with your final paper.

What is “peer review”?

Check out this brief video, No One Writes Alone, produced at MIT.

How do I prepare for the peer-review workshop?

You should read your group partners’ drafts before the peer-review workshop. For example, if you’re in “Group 1,” download the four papers written by your group members. Be sure to read each draft closely, and make comments on your reactions (see below). Upload a copy of your comments before the workshop, or email your partners directly and cc: me to receive credit. Bring a printed or digital copy of your partners’ essays and your comments to class for reference during the peer-review workshop discussions.

Should I focus on the details or global issues when reviewing someone’s draft?

Rather than edit sentences (i.e. focusing on grammar, punctuation, and spelling), share your reactions and concerns about the larger aspects of the draft, such as whether each article fulfills its purpose. However, if you notice a particular pattern of grammatical errors, be sure to share that trend. The following questions should serve as a guide to focus your feedback:
1. Did the author translate the science clearly and in an engaging way? If so, how? If not, in what ways could the science be more clearly explained and enticing for the reader?
2. Was the organization of the article effective?
3. What about the title?
4. The beginning?
5. The ending?
6. How does the author connect their topic to the world in which we live?
7. Anything you were confused by?
8. Was the metaphor choice(s) effective and appropriate?
9. What was the most effective aspect of the author’s writing?
10. Anything else you really enjoyed and admired?

Although you’re focusing on global issues, it’s important to identify and highlight specific moments in your partner’s paper that illustrate each of your critical points. Referencing single moments in the text will allow you and the author to engage in a concrete discussion of ways to improve the overall draft.

What do I do during the peer-review workshop?

4.1 Tips for Readers

Taking clear notes while you read the draft is critical, since it can be difficult to remember responses to a piece of writing when discussing the work days or even hours later. Likewise, these notes will benefit the author tremendously. Write directly on the draft and/or have a separate document with your overall thoughts, and give these materials to the author. Additional tips include:
- Have the article and your notes visible during the workshop
- Provide evidence for all comments by referring to specific moments in the text
- Be honest and specific
- Do not over-praise (aim for at most 30% praise and at least 70% constructive criticism)

4.2 Tips for Authors

It is important for the author to take notes while receiving feedback during the workshop, which will help you categorize and prioritize your readers’ responses when you revise the paper. The author should also be an active participant:

If you are unclear about a reviewer’s comment, ask for clarification
Ask specific questions about your work to generate specific answers from your readers
Rather than ask questions that require a simple yes/no answer (A), ask readers to paraphrase your ideas to gauge their comprehension (B).
1. “Do you understand what I’m saying in the 3rd paragraph?”
2. “What do you think I’m saying in the 3rd paragraph?”

The open-ending approach (B) will help you become more aware of how your audience understands and interprets your text. Learning how others’ respond to your writing is the core purpose of the peer-review workshop.

This all sounds helpful, but is it enjoyable?

The peer-review process brings your classmates together with the sole goal of helping one another. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Moreover, sharing your work with others brings the writing you’ve produced to life in new ways. The work will become more real for you and your readers. Understandably, the workshop may be intimidating at times, especially when you give/receive direct criticism, but the process can also be a lot of fun. Warning: some members of your peer-review group may smile and even laugh at times. Remember, we’re all in this together!

How do I prepare for the peer-review workshop?

You should read your group partners’ drafts before the peer-review workshop. For example, if you’re in “Group 1,” download the four papers written by your group members. Be sure to read each draft closely, and make comments on your reactions (see below). Upload a copy of your comments to the course website before the workshop, or email your partners directly and cc: me to receive credit. Bring a printed or digital copy of your partners’ essays and your comments to class for reference during the peer-review workshop discussions.

Should I focus on the details or global issues when reviewing someone’s draft?

Rather than edit sentences (i.e. focusing on grammar, punctuation, and spelling), share your reactions and concerns about the larger aspects of the draft, such as whether each article fulfills its purpose. However, if you notice a particular pattern of grammatical errors, be sure to share that trend. The following questions should serve as a guide to focus your feedback:

Did the author translate the science clearly and in an engaging way? If so, how? If not, in what ways could the science be more clearly explained and enticing for the reader?
Did the author bring the profiled person to life for the reader? If so, how? If not, what additional details could be included?
Was the organization of the article effective?
How about the title? The opening paragraph? The ending?
How does the author connect their topic to the world in which we live?
What was the impact of the image(s)?
Anything you were confused by?
Was the metaphor choice(s) effective and appropriate?
What was the most effective aspect of the author’s writing?
Anything else you really enjoyed and admired?

What do I do during the peer-review workshop?

3.1 Tips for Readers

Taking clear notes while you read the draft is critical, since it can be difficult to remember responses to a piece of writing when discussing the work days or even hours later. Likewise, these notes will benefit the author tremendously. Write directly on the draft and/or have a separate document with your overall thoughts, and give these materials to the author. Additional tips include:

Have the article and your notes visible during the workshop
Provide evidence for all comments by referring to specific moments in the text
Be honest and specific
Do not over-praise (aim for at most 30% praise and at least 70% constructive criticism)

3.2 Tips for Authors

If you are unclear about a reviewer’s comment, ask for clarification
Ask specific questions about your work to generate specific answers from your readers
Rather than ask questions that require a simple yes/no answer (A), ask readers to paraphrase your ideas to gauge their comprehension (B).
1. “Do you understand what I’m saying in the 3rd paragraph?”
2. “What do you think I’m saying in the 3rd paragraph?”

Part I. Research Topic

I plan to research [topic], because [reason for topic choice/what you want to learn], in order to show my reader [what you want the reader to discover].
The core research question I am curious to investigate is:

Part II. Preliminary Source List

The following 2-4 articles/books/videos will be helpful in researching issues related to my central research question:

Article Title and Author:

I think this will help me learn about:
Article Title and Author:

I think this will help me learn about:
Article Title and Author:

I think this will help me learn about:
Article Title and Author:

I think this will help me learn about:

Part III. Interview Plans (if you are investigating a new topic and have not yet met with someone involved in your area or inquiry)

Interviewee name and credentials:
The objective of this interview will be to:

Purpose: A close reader of the world looks beneath the surface of behavior and language, and explores instances of communication as rhetorical events rich with meaning. The purpose of this assignment is to analyze an online news article, and identify and discuss the writer’s rhetorical decisions and their impacts. Rather than state whether you believe the article is “good” or “bad”, or whether you liked it or not, apply a close-reading of the text. This assignment includes two main deliverables: 1) a written essay, and 2) a class discussion.

I. Written Essay (Individually Written)

Craft a coherent rhetorical analysis essay that includes the following two components:

Very brief summary of the article
Close reading of the work

For the summary portion (1), rather than describe everything in the article, very briefly share only the main points of the article. The summary should be no more than a brief paragraph. In your close reading (2)—the heart of this assignment—you should include and provide evidence for the following information:

Who is the author? (name, title, and credentials)
Where was the article published? (newspaper/magazine/website title)
What is the purpose and goal of the article?
Who is the intended audience of the article?
How does the author use rhetorical appeals, and for what purpose?
- Ethos: appeals to the character/expertise of the writer and cited authorities
- Logos: appeals based on logic, reasoning, and relevant evidence
- Pathos: appeals to the beliefs, emotions, and values of the audience
What rhetorical choices does the author make to achieve his/her goals?
- Diction, figurative language, tone, organization, length
Does the writer use visual images in the article? If so, what is their impact?
What evidence (if any) does the author provide to support her/his claims?
Where does this evidence come from?
What research might the author have conducted before writing the article?
What information does the author not include in the article, and why?
Is the author biased in any way?
Is the article trustworthy?

II. Class Discussion (Co-Lead With a Partner)

You will lead a 10-15 minute discussion of the article with a classmate, which will require you to meet beforehand and plan your questions. After introducing the article, try and stimulate discussion among your classmates with purposeful, open-ended questions. As mentioned above, the written rhetorical analysis essay should be completed individually, and the discussion should be led jointly with your partner.

Audience: Your audience for both the essay and discussion includes your teacher and classmates: we are a community of diverse people interested in the rhetorical choices involved in science articles written for the public. Since we have not read the article as closely as you have, it is critical that you provide the reasoning for all of your analytical claims involving the article.

Be sure to support all of your analytical points with specific evidence from the article, which will help your audience comprehend and support your rhetorical analysis. Since your audience has learned about the elements of a rhetorical situation (e.g. audience, purpose, context, genre) and rhetorical appeals (e.g. ethos, logos, pathos), you do not need to define these concepts in your essay.

Format requirements: MS Word (.doc) or Adobe (.pdf) with the following:

1"X1" margins
Size 12 Times New Roman font
Single-spaced text
600-800 words
Include page numbers

Before you submit your essay, re-read your writing, preferably aloud, to detect ideas that need to be tightened and/or reorganized for clarity.

Due Date: Be sure to write down and remember your specific due date and assigned article. Upload your essay to the course website anytime before your class discussion.

Capture attention and interest in your initial contact (email/phone)
- Introduce yourself (e.g. “I’m an MIT undergraduate student working on a class project…”)
- Be transparent and explicit about the purpose of the communication and the interview
  - Why are you contacting this person?
    - If sending an email, the subject line should indicate the purpose of the communication
  - Why do you want to interview them?
    - “I want to learn about you and your work…”
- Why should this person take the time to respond?
  - Share what you hope to gain from the interview
  - Describe what you plan to do with the information provided
- When do you need to meet?
  - Be specific with the deadline!
    - This deadline should be well in advance of your assignment due date
- How long will the interview take?
  - Be specific or provide an approximate range (e.g. 20-30min)
- Where will the interview take place?
  - Be flexible with the location: what works best for the interviewee?
Prepare targeted and open-ended questions
- Focus on the person’s experiences
  - Resist the temptation to offer solutions
- Prioritize your questions, as you will likely not be able to ask them all
- Record the interview (audio), if possible, but ask for the interviewee’s permission
- If you don’t yet have a photograph of the person, ask them for one, or take one
  - You can be creative: think back to the pic of the astronomer tying his shoe
Plan to improvise
- Ask “why?” after brief answers
- Ask follow-up questions when you’re curious to learn more
- Ask for explanations when you do not understand an answer
  - Listening to the way in which they explain their work to others is likely valuable for your profile article
- Don’t be afraid to go off script
- Enjoy the conversation
Be gracious and kind
- Time is precious, they’ve given you a gift
- Reiterate the impact of their help
- This person might be a helpful contact in the future
Have FUN
- Interviewing strangers is an adventure of discovery!

Generate a list of questions to ask the interviewee(s) in order to learn more about their experience. Write down as many questions as you can.

Purpose: The goal of this article is to bring your subject—your profiled person and her/his area of scientific wonder—to life for the reader. You may select any scientist, researcher, graduate or undergraduate student, or professor for your article. Use descriptive details to craft a meaningful profile that makes your subject and her/his “awesome” interest tangible for the audience. Enable readers to feel that they “know” the person you are writing about, and in turn, become inspired by their story and field of interest. This article should demonstrate your ability to meaningfully describe a person and briefly explain a scientific topic within a clear, well-organized narrative.

Ultimately, you should strive to inspire your audience by reaching their “head” and “heart”—their intellect (logos) and emotion (pathos)—in order to connect with and educate the reader in a memorable way. The profile should be 1000-1200 words.

Audience: You are writing for the general public. They are unaware of the person you are writing about and unfamiliar with the scientific topic.

Context: The article will appear in an online magazine or newspaper, such as the New York Times or Popular Science. In each of these contexts there is no “automatic audience,” that is, as a writer you must creatively and intentionally capture and sustain the attention of potential readers if you want them to read and remember your story.

Form: Submit the article as an MS Word document or Adobe PDF with the following:

1”X1” margins
Size 12 Times New Roman font
1000-1200 words
Single-spaced text
Include page numbers

Additional requirements and tips:

Contact your subject by Session 14 and interview them. Refer to the “Strategies for Interviewing Strangers” section for information on how to contact and interview your subject. Securing an in-person meeting might be the most challenging aspect of this assignment, and will require persistence and clear communication.
Include at least one original photo with a caption. Additional images do not need to be original, and accordingly, they require an accurate citation.
Write a story rather than a list of facts and characteristics.
Craft a meaningful title, since these are the first words your readers will read as they decide whether or not to read your article.
Before you submit your draft, re-read your writing, preferably aloud, to detect ideas that need to be tightened and/or reorganized for clarity.

Due Dates: