Winter classes: UWP 11
In "Winter" "Break" I mentioned doing prep for two classes that begin in January.
UWP 11: Popular Science and Technology Writing, is a lower-division elective that actually enrolls students at all stages, from first years to "super seniors" (fifth year undergrads).
The course name is misleading -- I wanted to call it "Rhetoric of Popular Science," but other UWP faculty objected to my using the word "rhetoric." (Today I would be allowed to, but when I proposed the course in 2010, the anti-rhetoric faction was much stronger.) Basically, it's a class on critical scientific communication: students read, analyze, and recommend improvements to popular science articles.
UWP 11 enrolls 60-80 students. They and the TA team and I meet Tuesday and Thursday for 80 minutes each time, and the TAs meet with students in small groups for 50 minutes on Fridays. In theory, the large group sessions are "lectures" and the small group sessions are "discussions." In reality, we spend a lot of the so-called lecture time having conversations -- small group and plenary -- and taking time for students to try applying new ideas to the readings.
For example, students learn early in the quarter to distinguish "cold" knowledge (stuff we are pretty damn sure of) from "hot" knowledge (stuff that is still uncertain), with gradations in between.
Examples of very cold knowledge include:
Knowledge can go from hot to cold (plate tectonics, anyone?), but sometimes things that were considered cold heat back up again (hello, epigenetics!).
Also, within a given area, there can be variation from case to case. Smallpox vaccine? Freezing cold. Rotavrius vaccine? Rather warm, at least according to the medical articles I have seen on the topic.
When it comes to the cold-hot distinction, popular science articles often make one or both of the following errors:
1. Over-chilling the research they talk about, that is, presenting it as colder than it is. The CRISPR gene modification technique is a great example. The unknowns are enormous, but CRISPR gets presented as The Solution to All Genetic Problems:
In UWP 11, students learn to identify ways that popular science texts present knowledge appropriately (showing hot as hot or cold as cold) and inappropriately (mostly showing hot as colder than it is). When an article could do better on this front, they write about HOW it could do better -- for example, by using more hedges, sharing more detailed information about what is really known, including a counter-study or studies, and so on.
They do this for each of the different rhetorical lenses/angles we cover, ending the quarter with heuristics for and suggestions about risk communication.
It's a fun class, and I am excited to be teaching it again starting next week. My other class is a graduate seminar I'll write about in a separate post. Meanwhile, happy new year! Iyi seneler!
UWP 11: Popular Science and Technology Writing, is a lower-division elective that actually enrolls students at all stages, from first years to "super seniors" (fifth year undergrads).
The course name is misleading -- I wanted to call it "Rhetoric of Popular Science," but other UWP faculty objected to my using the word "rhetoric." (Today I would be allowed to, but when I proposed the course in 2010, the anti-rhetoric faction was much stronger.) Basically, it's a class on critical scientific communication: students read, analyze, and recommend improvements to popular science articles.
UWP 11 enrolls 60-80 students. They and the TA team and I meet Tuesday and Thursday for 80 minutes each time, and the TAs meet with students in small groups for 50 minutes on Fridays. In theory, the large group sessions are "lectures" and the small group sessions are "discussions." In reality, we spend a lot of the so-called lecture time having conversations -- small group and plenary -- and taking time for students to try applying new ideas to the readings.
For example, students learn early in the quarter to distinguish "cold" knowledge (stuff we are pretty damn sure of) from "hot" knowledge (stuff that is still uncertain), with gradations in between.
Examples of very cold knowledge include:
- A falling body accelerates at 32 feet per second squared
- The earth goes around the sun
- Weeds and bugs develop resistance to herbicides and pesticides
- Gravity works
- How gravity works
- Environmental effects of GMO crops
- What causes autism (and even what it is, since it's many things)
- The long-term health effects of IVF on the people conceived using it
Knowledge can go from hot to cold (plate tectonics, anyone?), but sometimes things that were considered cold heat back up again (hello, epigenetics!).
Also, within a given area, there can be variation from case to case. Smallpox vaccine? Freezing cold. Rotavrius vaccine? Rather warm, at least according to the medical articles I have seen on the topic.
When it comes to the cold-hot distinction, popular science articles often make one or both of the following errors:
1. Over-chilling the research they talk about, that is, presenting it as colder than it is. The CRISPR gene modification technique is a great example. The unknowns are enormous, but CRISPR gets presented as The Solution to All Genetic Problems:
2. Asking readers to trust hot science because of cold science. This often shows up in what I call the Airplane Appeal -- the demand that people trust in Technology X because they ride in airplanes. (E.g. "You trust science enough to fly in a plane, so your opposition to nuclear power is illogical.)
In UWP 11, students learn to identify ways that popular science texts present knowledge appropriately (showing hot as hot or cold as cold) and inappropriately (mostly showing hot as colder than it is). When an article could do better on this front, they write about HOW it could do better -- for example, by using more hedges, sharing more detailed information about what is really known, including a counter-study or studies, and so on.
They do this for each of the different rhetorical lenses/angles we cover, ending the quarter with heuristics for and suggestions about risk communication.
It's a fun class, and I am excited to be teaching it again starting next week. My other class is a graduate seminar I'll write about in a separate post. Meanwhile, happy new year! Iyi seneler!
Happy new year! I enjoyed hearing about the hot and cold concepts.
ReplyDeleteThank you! It's always nice to know that a Palm Tree found something enjoyable.
ReplyDelete