The Science Of Scientific Writing .Course Introduction. Overview : Content and Packaging : Enriched Blueprints : Compartmentalisation : Course Mechanics
OVERVIEW: The way to well-written science
PART I: Paragraphs and Sentences
SET A: Paragraphs: The Maps Behind Them
SET B: Paragraphs: Using Maps to Meet Readers' Expectations
SET C: Paragraphs with Something Extra: Points and Tails
SET D: The Generic Section: Expectations and Maps as Blueprints
SET E: Scientific Sections: The Methods and Results
SET F: Scientific Sections: The Discussion
SET G : Scientific Sections: The Introduction
SET H : Sentences
SET I : The Paper as a Whole
PART II: The Paper and its Sections
SET 1: Argument Parts
SET 2: Indicator Words
SET 4: Locating Arguments in Prose
SET 5: Rationale's Essay Planner
SET 6: Evidence in Arguments: Basis Boxes
Synthesis 1: Position-Early Paragraphs
Synthesis 2: Position-Final Paragraphs
Synthesis 3: Writing a Discussion I
Synthesis 4: Writing a Discussion II
Sources for creating this course
The single most important inspiration for Part I is the work that is sometimes referred to as "Reader Expectation Theory". This was popularized by the books of Joseph Williams and others who worked with him in Chicago from about 1980 onwards, including Wayne C. Booth, Gregory Colomb and George Gopen. One of the more influential publications in ths area, with respect to science writing, was the 1990 American Scientist article from which this course derives its name, The Science of Scientific Writing, by George Gopen and Judith Swan.
The Williams group, apart from its own original thinking, also synthesised (and simplified) a lot of existing research in the area of reading and writing strategies. While this course takes a highly pragmatic approach, I hope in time to also indicate, where appropriate, the research that underpins 'Reader Expectation Theory' and the other ideas presented here.
A major influence on the "pattern" of the Introduction comes from John Swales' book, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings
Most of the examples in Part I were written by Geoff Hyde, with others taken from the theses of students at NCBS, or published scientific articles. I will soon make all attributions clear.
Much of the current course material in Part II is based on, or draws directly from, a series of exercises originally written by the austhink team for the argument mapping software used in this course, Rationale. They are used here with the kind permission of the austhink team, and I am in the process of making all attributions clear. I have also applied the pedagogic approach used in those exercises to the material presented in Part I.
......