This document outlines the requirements for a semester-long project in an English and journalism course where students will write blog posts summarizing and analyzing science news articles. Each week, students will choose an article from designated sources, write a 200-word blog post summarizing the article and analyzing the author's writing strategies. This will be done through questions about the science values presented, explanatory devices used, role of the scientific process, and use of quotes. Students must submit 11 blog posts total plus a final summary of strategies learned for writing about science. A sample blog post entry is also provided.

1. ENGL 318/JAMM 328 | pg 1
Weekly(ish) Science Story Analysis
100 points; semester-long project. Final due date Friday, May 7.
By reading and analyzing the work of other science writers, you’ll improve
your own writing. So, each week(ish), you’ll be reading and reporting on a
new science news story of your choice. By the end of the semester, you’ll
have ten entries plus a summary post.
TASK
Each week, choose one article from either the New York Times science
section or the National Geographic science blogs (see links to both on the
Weeklyish Science Story Analysis BbLearn page and write a brief (200-word)
analysis of the writer’s rhetorical choices on a blog that you set up
specifically for this purpose.
1. Set up your blog. You can use any blogging platform you like - popular
ones are WordPress and Blogger. Email me (jnicotra@uidaho.edu) the link to
your blog by Wednesday, January 17. I will post the links on the BbLearn
site. I will not monitor your blog postings until the end of the semester, but I
advise not trying to do all eleven entries in the same week; make yourself a
schedule for when you’re going to do these entries.
2. Summarize and analyze the strategies used in the piece. Your first
paragraph should summarize the gist of the story in your own words (i.e.,
what new scientific research or concept it wants readers to grasp). (NOTE:
your first paragraph should also include a link to the story that you’re
analyzing.) The second paragraph should be an analysis of the piece. You
can use the following questions to help you think about how the story works:
a. Which science/health news values, if any, does the story draw upon?
Describe these specifically and explain how they work in the piece.
b. Does the piece rely on metaphors, similes, analogies, or other
explanatory devices to help readers grasp scientific concepts? Describe
and explain why these are effective or ineffective.
c. How prominently does the process of science (the scientists and what
they did) figure into the piece, and why?
d. Does the piece include quotes by scientists or others? What’s the
purpose of these quotes?
3. Summary piece. For your final entry (an 11th one), review all your posts
and summarize the list of strategies and tactics you learned for writing about
science to non-scientific audiences.

2. ENGL 318/JAMM 328 | pg 2
You should have 11 entries total, worth 10 points each.
SAMPLE ENTRY
In Brian Switek’s National Geographic Phenomena article “AUV Shows What
Great White Sharks Do All Day,” Switek attempts to correct a wary public’s
misperceptions of shark behavior. Switek reports on a 2015 article published
in The Journal of Fish Biology about using Autonomous Underwater Vehicles
(AUVs) to track the behavior of the elusive Carcharodon carchardias, more
commonly known to the public as the great white shark.
Like many science writers, Switek doesn’t simply describe the research, but
attempts to give readers insight into the research process. In Switek’s
article, the lead author on the Journal of Fish Biology article and his research
team become the leaders of a scientific expedition of discovery. Switek
situates them within his story as active characters, “turn[ing] to technology”
to “find out” what happens when sharks are tagged, then tracked with AUVs,
and ultimately “propos[ing]” a “different sort of predatory behavior.”
Interestingly, though he mentions it briefly and includes a link, Switek
doesn’t focus on the most obvious fears that great whites typically evoke -
i.e., that of being bitten or eaten while out for a swim or a splash in the surf.
Instead, he uses the research described in the related scientific article to
debunk perceptions that sharks are little more than “machines” that “swim
and eat and make little sharks.” Ultimately, Switek seems to want to make
sharks seem a little more relatable to us. He describes the shark’s behavior
in response to the AUVs as curious, comparing their actions to that of more
cuddly (and relatable) mammals. The article ends on a philosophical note,
citing “the mostly-peaceful and inquisitive ramblings of some of the greatest
predators in the sea.”