First assignment for University of Idaho ENGL 318 (Science Writing)

1. ENGL 318/JAMM 328 | pg 1
PROJECT 1
[Persuasion in Scientific & Public Contexts]
100 points. Initial draft due Wednesday, February 5 by 11:59 p.m. Final
draft due Monday, February 10 by 11:59 p.m.
In this course, we will toggle between working to understand science
communication and to do science communication. This project addresses the
former goal: you will be using a rhetorical lens to analyze a scientific article
(which of course first requires understanding that science is a rhetorical
enterprise), along with a popularization of that scientific article.
PROJECT DELIVERABLE
Write a comparative analysis of a scientific article and its popular
“accommodation,” focusing on the rhetorical moves native to both contexts.
The paper should begin by explaining why (from your perspective as either a
scientist or humanist/journalist) it’s important to do such rhetorical analysis.
You should start by finding a scientific article and its popular
“accommodation.” Probably the easiest way to do this is to look for
popularizations first, then track back to the scientific article they’re
discussing. Popularizations can be found on the National Geographic
Phenomena blog, the Nature editorial section, and the Science section of The
New York Times or other national newspapers.
Next, you’ll want to separately break down the rhetorical moves of each
piece. (Note that it’s not very rhetorically minded to speak about a
popularization as a “dumbing down” of the scientific article; as the readings
we’ll be doing for class show, each has very different audiences and
purposes.)
I do not require certain page lengths or word counts; however, I imagine
that to do a good job at this (making appropriate analytical claims and
providing evidence), your paper would likely need to be at least 4 pages.
GRADING CHART
Your comparative analysis will be evaluated on the following qualities.

2. ENGL 318/JAMM 328 | pg 2
Analytical acuity. Specific, developed analysis and insightful
observations. Maintains appropriate focus on claims throughout the
paper.
25
points
Supporting evidence. Supporting information relates to and
appropriately supports analytical claims, is well-integrated into
analytical argument.
25
points
Organization. The paper is logically organized, coherent, and cohesive
- at the sentence, paragraph, and overall level.
25
points
Writing fluency. Writing is clear, concise, and exhibits few to no
mechanical or grammatical errors. Sources are documented
appropriately, both in the text and at the end of the document.
25
points
TOTAL 100
points