WRT333: Scientific and Technical Writing

Assignment 1—Structure and Content of Scientific and Technical Journal Articles
(an assignment in 3 parts)
Given 9/10 | Due 9/22

syllabus | grading

Part 1

A well-written article in a research journal has both good content and appropriate writing style. Content is determined by the scope of the journal. Style is set by instructions to authors and by reference to published style guidelines and rules.

Scientists or technical writers from different fields differ in their traditions. Their research journals reflect traditions in both content and style of articles. Journal style difference are even greater between the life sciences and engineering, the social sciences, and the arts. There are also differences of opinion between scholars at different universities and between generations of scientists. Style guides have new editions at least every decade or so! For you to have a more precise idea of what is correct and contemporary—knowledge you will need not only to write well, but also to defend your writing from critics—you must be aware of current guides to practice in the journals in which you hope to publish. Even if you are not yet ready to submit your own professional publication, it may be very useful to you to be familiar with the styles and conventions used in the contemporary literature in your field, so that you may better mimic the "standards" that your professors expect on well-written term papers and research reports.

This assignment will help you find the accepted practices within your scientific discipline.

NOTE: This assignment seeks SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH journals, as we are looking at the core of modern science, the scientific research article. These journals are publishing primary research results, where the authors have developed original observations, usually quantifiable. DO NOT confuse research journals with other professional society publications (bulletins, popularizations). Research papers are not reviews of other people's work (this is called "secondary research"), nor are they opinion or commentary (see Review Articles). They also normally follow the rigid IMRAD format, with an INTRODUCTION followed by clearly delineated METHODS, RESULTS and DISCUSSION sections. The selection of a technical article that does not follow IMRAD format should be allowed only as a last resort for those of you who work in a field that does not really have scientific research articles; you are, nevertheless, responsible for knowing how scientific research articles are organized and their content governed by contemporary IMRAD conventions.

Part 2

Notes: Introduction

Using the article you have chosen (above), analyze the introduction of each article sentence by sentence. At the end of each sentence, write a number 1 through 5 to correspond to one of Day's five suggested functions for the introduction. If you cannot assign a function, mark the sentence with a question mark (?). If the nature and scope of the problem (Day's suggestion #1) does not appear in the first paragraph, rewrite the first paragraph so that the nature and scope appear as quickly as possible. If a summary of results (Day's #4) and conclusions (Day's #5) do not appear in the introduction, write 1-2 sentences (or a brief paragraph) that accomplishes points 4 and 5. Be prepared to attack or defend Day's 5 suggestions in class.

Part 3

Notes: Methods and Results | Discussion

We will discuss Day's views on Methods, Results, and Discussion in class. Using the same article that you used above, write a short critique (1-2 paragraphs) of the Methods and Results, focusing on the structural relations and distinctions. That is, discuss briefly (1-2 paragraphs) whether you as reader were well served by use of headings in these two sections, and whether Methods followed Day (could you understand the observations or repeat experiments?) and Results were adequate to support conclusions (there may be many ways for you to express your opinion on this). Finally, discuss briefly whether the discussion actually discussed the results, and whether the article was closed in the discussion (hypothesis accepted or rejected, question answered or not, etc.).

What you will hand in: On a professionally appearing (i.e., printed neatly, by machine) set of pages (with course number, section number, assignment number and your name at top), include the following.

  1. Part 1
    • List of top three journals in your field.
    • Paragraph describing domain on one of these journals
  2. Part 2
    • Copy of the introduction of the article, with each sentence numbered 1-5 according to Day's 5 functions (see instructions, above)
    • Copy of the introduction with the sentence(s) stating NATURE and SCOPE underlined; If these sentences do not appear in the first paragraph, then you will rewrite the first paragraph and hand that in, instead
    • Copy of the introduction with sentences marked as summary of results (#4, see above) or summary of conclusions (#5, see above); if these do not appear in the introduction, then you will write them so that they could be included in the introduction (e.g., you'll write a paragraph to be appended to the introduction).
  3. Part 3
    • Short critique of Methods and Results sections focusing on use of headings to tie methods to results
    • Short critique of Discussion, as above.

How will this assignment be graded? Each part will be assigned up to 5 points (total for assignment is 15% of your course grade) as follows:

  1. Part 1: 2 pts for list; 3 pts for domain description (includes 1 pt for grammar and spelling, so proof read this!)
  2. Part 2: 2 pts for numbered introduction; 1 pt for correctly finding nature and scope or for rewriting first paragraph to include it; 2 pts (1 each) for finding or adding sentences on results and discussion to introduction.
  3. Part 3: 3 pts for critique of methods and results; 2 pts for critique of discussion.