週次 |
日期 |
單元主題 |
Week 1 |
2/26 |
Ice breaking: Get to know each other via small games: (1) tell three unique characteristics about yourself (2) tell the most interesting/exciting/embarrassing thing about yourself (3) tell what you WRITE besides internet posts (4) what is your current writing stage? (prospectus? abstract? dissertation? manuscript?)
Kill the beast that stops you from writing (in English): Recognize mental barriers and discuss solutions to break those barriers.Think and describe in English: Practice using English to describe scientific data presented in a figure. This is a way for me to get to know students’ English level.
PLAGIARISM: It is illegal! Citations needed. |
Week 2 |
3/04 |
Communication through written documents: Discuss what we learned by analyzing published papers. Ask ourselves: What makes us think some paper are easier to read than others? (Science merits? Structure of the article? Writing style? Story? Lots of mathematical equations?) What would we do to improve those hard-to-read ones if we were the authors?
Peer review of each other’s short articles.
|
Week 3 |
3/11 |
Writing (science) to communicate: Discuss the purposes of writing in scientific research. Why do we need to write? What are we writing now? (Dissertation proposal? Conference abstract? Scholarship application? Manuscript?) Which part of a manuscript are we working on? (Introduction? Methods? Results? Discussions? Conclusions?) What are we writing about? Who are our target audiences? (Journal reviewers? dissertation committee? your adviser? conference attendee?). Expand your Facebook post into a short article with a limit of 800-850 words. |
Week 4 |
3/18 |
Data report versus full paper: Example of a "data-dump" paper. Discuss the pros and cons about a data-dump paper. What makes scientists different from technicians or lab assistances? Discuss how we can become better story-tellers. Analyze published papers. Are these data-dump or story-telling papers? Which type of paper helps us fill the knowledge gap? |
Week 5 |
3/25 |
Identify the differences between the introductions of a literature review article versus that of a regular paper. |
Week 6 |
4/01 |
Opening: introduction, background; Challenge: question, objectives (I): Discuss different types of introductions.Practice analyzing introductions in published papers. Learn to identify the pros and cons about an introduction section.Discuss how to IMPROVE weak paragraphs. Discuss alternative methods to improve our introduction. |
Week 7 |
4/08 |
Results versus discussions: Discuss the differences between results (raw data, statistics) and discussions. Learn to connect many results or observations to form a strong discussion. Discuss how to use multiple lines of supports to make strong arguments. Analyze published papers. Revisit our "data-dump" versus "full-paper" examples. Discuss ways we can turn data-dump articles into full-papers. |
Week 8 |
4/15 |
Discussions (continued): Discuss what should be included in the discussions. How to make discussions more meaningful and useful? Why do we need to discuss? Aren’t the data self-explaining? |
Week 9 |
4/22 |
Conclusions and highlights: Analyze the conclusions in published papers. Highlight the following common words used in conclusions: prove, confirm, show, demonstrate, illustrate, indicate, suggest, imply, infer. Analyze students' short article. Discuss the meanings of those words. Which of these words did you use in your short article? Discuss how to IMPROVE weak conclusions. Analyze examples 9.5-9.9 from Schimel’s book. Discuss alternative ways that we can use to improve our conclusions. |
Week 10 |
4/29 |
One slide presentation of students' research results and preliminary data interpretation. Discuss how effective students use their data to answer their guiding question. Action: methods, results, data interpretation, discussions. |
Week 11 |
5/06 |
Coherence: Discuss what coherence means and how to make an article more coherent. Guided study by analyzing examples 10.3 versus 10.4 and 11.6 versus 11.7 from Schimel’s book. Discuss why examples 10.4 and 11.7 are so much easier for us to understand. What did Dr. Schimel do to improve the paragraphs in examples 10.3 and 11.6? We will work in a group and list strategies Schimel used to rewrite those incoherent sentences. Work in groups to rewrite an incoherent paragraph that was written by one of the students in the class. Student presentation of their revised paragraphs. Sentence: Discuss the examples listed in chapter 12 from Schimel’s book. Analyze how the author improved those sentences. Identify issues in student's own writing. Each student will work on improving their own sentences. |
Week 12 |
5/13 |
(Don’t be afraid of making) Common English mistakes—learn to eliminate common English mistakes but do not let your fear prevent you from writing down thoughts in English. Learn to make a good use of professional editors (or me or your graduate advisors). Analyze and identify sentences that contain common English mistakes. Discuss how to correct common mistakes such as inconsistency verbs, plural or singular, tense, dangling sentences, preposition, and punctuation. |
Week 13 |
5/20 (may need to reschedule) |
Word choice: Analyze and compare select words commonly used in scientific papers. Discuss the power of being more specific. For instance, those listed in table 14.1, 14.2, 15.1, and 15.2 from Schimel’s book. Students use ctrl+F to search and highlight those words in the published articles and in their own writing. Revise their writing by substituting those fuzzy words with stronger/more specific words. |
Week 14 |
5/27 |
Condense/concise: Learn how to condense one’s writing by eliminating unnecessary words/sentences. Analyze and discuss how Schimel condenses sentences. Analyze how my coauthors help me condense my sentences. Discuss techniques that we can use to remove redundant words. |
Week 15 |
6/03 |
Deal with comments: Discuss attitudes we have about (negative) comments. Discuss possible ways we can respond to reviewers' comments. Students learn to how to constructively respond to comments from reviewers, advisors, committee members. Students must learn a positive attitude toward revision. Tina will share stories about dealing with comments. "Revise, Revise and Revise": No matter how good your article is, it can be better. How did you incorporating comments from your peer and advisors? How do scientists revise their manuscripts? How to comment on your own article? |
Week 16 |
6/10 |
No class. Dragon Boat Festival. |
Week 17 |
6/17 |
Synopsis: Review all of the concepts we have covered during this course. Revisit common mistakes and ways to correct them. Discuss any issues that are relevant to science writing. Discuss ways you have learned to improve your thinking and writing. Share your thoughts on how to improve this course. |