Prospectus for Scientific Critique. Fall 2003
BI 317
Times
MWF, 9:30-10:30
Instructor
Roger Denome, Associate Professor of Biology.
Office: 213 Science building. Phone: 565-1196 E-mail: rdenome@stonehill.edu
Office Hours: M-F 8:30-9:30, T-F 11:15-12:00, and by appointment.
Text: Carter and Skates, The Rinehart Handbook for Writers, plus various readings from the primary literature in Biology.
Class Format
This class consists of much reading and writing. We will read primary literature, rewrite it, critique it, discuss it. We will critique each other's work; one of the best ways to learn how to write better is to see all the successes and failure that a group of writers can make. This class is intended to make you a more critical and effective reader, writer, editor and thinker. It will also improve your ability to teach, since much of what we will do will find flaws in reasoning and communication. The clearer your presentation, the better your teaching will be.
Grading
Your grade in this class is based on two components.
Class participation. Your ability and willingness to communicate is an integral part of writing and effective critique. One quarter (100 points max.) of your grade depends on class participation.
Written assignments. Three quarters (300 points max.) of your grade depends on your writing and rewriting. Some of the critiquing and rewriting will involve reworking material written by others, including other class members. We will also do some figure and table design. Assignment due dates will be determined as we go through the class. They are tentatively given in the calendar below. The number of points per assignment is still under consideration, as are the exact due dates. The reason is simple. I need to see what you need to work on before I can firm up the dates and assignments.
There will be no tests or final exam in this class. Since this class depends so much on participation and reading of each other's work, it is essential that the work be done on time. You will not receive credit for late work, unless there is a really good excuse. (The instructor determines if an excuse is acceptable.)
The following schedule is tentative. Changes will only be made after consultation with the class.
Schedule
Date Subject
9/3 Good and Bad writing. Discussion of Plagiarism. Start reading Watson and Crick, 1953.
9/5 Good and Bad writing. Discussion of Plagiarism.
9/8 Discussion of Writing formats. Title and Abstract assignment.
9/10 Abstract Due. Discussion of Watson and Crick, 1953.
9/12 Discussion of abstracts. Assignment of reworked abstract.
9/15 Reworked abstracts due.
9/17 Discussion of reworked abstracts. Assignment of Yoshida et al., 2003.
9/19 Discussion of Yoshida et al., 2003 Assignment of Rewrite on Yoshida et al., 2003
9/22 Rewrite of Yoshida et al., 2003 due. Discussion of “Science” and other formats.
9/24 Discussion of Rewrite of Yoshida et al., 2003
9/26 Discussion of Rewrite of Yoshida et al., 2003
9/29 Discussion of Rewrite of Yoshida et al., 2003 Start Roman and Palumbi, 2003.
10/1 Discussion of Roman and Palumbi, 2003.
10/3 Discussion of Roman and Palumbi, 2003
10/6 Rewrite of Roman and Palumbi, 2003.
10/8 Discussion of rewrite of Roman and Palumbi, 2003.
10/10 Discussion of rewrite of Roman and Palumbi, 2003.
10/13 Columbus Day; no classes
10/15 Figures and Tables Due.
10/17 Discussion of Reviews. Start McKone and Halpern, 2003.
10/20 Discussion of McKone and Halpern, 2003. Written review of Greider due.
10/22 Discussion of McKone and Halpern, 2003, Turn in preliminary review literature list.
10/24 Discussion of McKone and Halpern, 2003.
10/27 Discussion of McKone and Halpern, 2003. Discuss problems with title and abstract.
10/29 Title and abstract for review due. Discuss problems.
10/31 Discuss titles and abstracts. Critique and comment format.
11/3 Discuss titles and abstracts.
11/5 Discuss titles and abstracts. Rewrite of title and abstract, plus body of review due.
11/7 Discussion of Reviews.
11/10 Discussion of Reviews.
11/12 Discussion of Reviews.
11/14 Rewrite of review due.
11/17 Discussion of rewrite.
11/19 Discussion of rewrite.
11/21 Discussion of rewrite. Read Denome and Cole, 1988. Mol. Cel. Biol. 8:4829-4839.
11/24 Discussion of rewrite. Read Denome and Cole, 1988. Mol. Cel. Biol. 8:4829-4839.
11/26-30 Thanksgiving break—No classes
12/1 Discussion of Denome and Cole.
12/3 Discussion of Denome and Cole.
12/5 Discussion of Denome and Cole (critique due)
12/8 Discussion of Denome and Cole.
12/10 Discussion of Denome and Cole.
Notes on plagiarism.
You may discuss written assignments with each other. However, it is essential that the final product of the written assignments be individual projects. Please note the following rules.
1. Make sure that you are responsible for your wording. It is your responsibility to make sure that you put concepts in your own words, not those of a common study group or text. Similar wording and sentence structure are indicators of plagiarism. Copying, then altering a passage slightly so that the wording is not exactly the same as the original is still plagiarism.
2. Give credit to sources. If you do use wording or a significant body of ideas from another source, you must give credit to that source. This means including correct references and page numbers for the source. You can't use the instructor, another student or the textbook as a source. Using someone's work without giving credit is plagiarism.
Don't depend extensively on quotes from other sources. Written assignments are to see if you understand the material. If all you do is quote from outside sources, you haven't shown me that you understand the material. Work to express your answers in your own words.
There are only so many ways to describe many phenomena. The use of jargon words and phrases in genetics is not plagiarism. Plagiarism is the use of significant sections (a sentence or more) from another source without giving credit to the person who produced the original.
3. Response to plagiarism. If I encounter written assignments that seem to be plagiarism, the students involved will be given the opportunity to explain. If the explanation is not satisfactory to all parties, an independent member of the science faculty will review the material. If the material is deemed plagiarism, then all of the papers involved will be given a score of 0 (zero). College rules for dealing with plagiarism will be enforced. This involves reporting the infraction to the Academic Review Board. A second offense will result in a grade of “F” for the course.
Early papers.
I will look at first drafts of papers up until 2 days before the paper is due. The closer to the due date, the less information you will get back from me. This is a simple matter of time. As the due date gets closer, the number of students asking for input increases; I have less time to review each paper. In any event, I will point out where there are problems with a paper and possibly suggest where to go to get the solutions to these problems. I will try my best to catch all of the problems, but given time constraints, I may miss some. Don't assume that I have caught everything. It's your paper, not mine. It's your responsibility to make sure everything is in it that you want in it.
Late papers.
My standard policy for late written assignments is:
20% of the maximum point total for the paper will be deducted from the score for each day that the paper is late. (A paper is one day late if it is from 1 minute to 24 hours late.) Obviously, this suggests that getting the paper in on time makes sense.
The assignments for papers and the date on which they are due are announced long in advance. It is difficult to imagine an excuse that would justify submitting a paper late. It is conceivable that such an excuse is out there. If you think that you have such an excuse, let me know and we'll discuss it. I might waive or reduce the 20% deduction.
The rules of engagement
Every criticism has the potential to be extremely painful to someone (possibly everyone). Because of this, we have to be very careful about how we approach this class. I don't want people to be leaving angry.
1. State your opinions as questions or conjecture. “Would it be better to do it this way?” is much easier to deal with than “Your way is wrong.” Both statements speak to the same point. The first is less likely to cause fistfights.
2. Frequently, no one is “right”. There may be multiple solutions to some problems. Think constructively, and don't take offense when someone disagrees with you.
3. If you decide to play devil's advocate, be nice about it. The purpose of this class is not to win the argument; it is to develop writing skills.
In the end, this comes down to common courtesy.