This document outlines the course requirements and assignments for Professor Julia Chan's chemistry classes, including an inorganic chemistry literature review and proposal. It details the grading breakdown, with exams accounting for 60% and other assignments like homework, quizzes, and the literature review making up the remaining 40%. For the literature review assignment, students must write an 8-page double-spaced review of a recent inorganic chemistry research article and get approval for their topic by September 27th. Graduate students must also include a 2-page research proposal. The document provides guidelines for the literature review, including formatting and citation requirements. It describes how students will participate in a peer review process to evaluate each other's papers and gain experience with the publication process.

1. Julia Chan
Professor
Department of Chemistry
Authentic, discipline-specific writing experiences

2. My classes
• Chem 1421 (Honors Chemistry, ~75 students)
• Chem 4570 (Advance Inorganic Chemistry, ~45 students)
Exams 60 %
Homework, class assignments, & quizzes 20 %
Literature review/ Proposal 15 %
Final Version 5 %
2
Courses certified for oral & written components of CXC

3. Literature Review/ Proposal
 Find a recent article (2011-2012) and write a review in an inorganic
chemistry topic (8 pages, double-space max, figures not included)
 You can focus on the synthesis, structure, and the properties of a class of
inorganic material. Graduate students will add 2 page proposal after review.
 You must get my approval first and select your topic by 9/27/2012
 NO WEB-based references accepted
 A rubric will be available for both oral & written presentations. Please note
that only ACS formatted manuscripts will be acceptable.
 Citations must contain titles of articles
 Paper will be due 11/9/2012, by noon. I will return your paper within 2
weeks
 Final revisions (5%) will be due Wednesday of finals week
3
Goal: Prepare students to write a manuscript – PUBLICATIONS!!!

4. How to write good – By Frank Visco
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/humor/writegood.cfm
Avoid Alliteration. Always.
Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.)
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.
It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
Contractions aren’’ t necessary.
Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
One should never generalize.
Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
Comparisons are as bad as clichés.
Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
Profanity sucks.
Be more or less specific.
Understatement is always best.
Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
One word sentences? Eliminate.
Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
The passive voice is to be avoided.
Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
Who needs rhetorical questions?
4

5. Assessing Written Communication (CxC, Fall)
Student Name: _____________________ Date:__________________________________________
CRITERIA Weak Strong
Introduction (30 points)
Comments:
Methods/ Experimental
(10 points)
Comments:
Results & Discussion
(30 points)
Comments:
Conclusions/ proposal
(20 points)
Comments:
Overall Style & Format
(10 points)
Comments:
Overall Assessment
Overall Priorities for Revision or Final Comments
5

6. Rubric
Introduction (30 points)
1. Has the general theoretical or conceptual area of interest been presented? (15 points)
2. Is there an adequate review of the relevant literature? (6 points given for the required five references)
3. Are the research question(s) clear and explicitly stated?
4. Has the value and implication of the study been discussed? (4 to 5 points)
Methods (10 points)
1. Are the methods clearly presented?
2. This section should be general for a review paper.
Results and discussion of the area (30 points)
Write a critical review of the area.
1. Were results provided with appropriate/adequate information?
2. Were the results discussed in sufficient detail?
3. What data were accumulated?
Conclusions and Final Comments (20 points)
1. Was a clear overall statement regarding support or non support of your research questions provided?
2. Have possible problems, such as confounding variables and alternative explanations for the results, been
discussed?
3. Have the practical or theoretical applications and/or implications of the study's findings been discussed?
4. Have suggestions for future research directions been made? (graduate and honors students: Include
proposal in this section (2 additional pages).
Overall style and format (10 points)
1. Abstract - approximately 100 - 150 words.
2. Does it adequately summarize the study?
3. Has standard ACS format been followed? (5 points for correct reference style)
4. Good scholarly writing is essential in terms of clarity, organization and use of evidence
6

7. Evaluation
• Students submit manuscript electronically along with cover letter
• Papers are sent out for reviews (2 reviewers + Editor)
• Students get feedback (2 written reviews + my review) &
experience review process
• Students write cover letter, revise manuscript, address reviewers’
comments and submit back to editor
• Grade students for evaluating papers (homework category)
• Most fulfilling: Paper accepted and part of Journal of Chem 4570!
7

8. 8

9. Journal of Chem 4570, Fall 2012 Volume 6