Question.828 - Argument Essay Your argument research essay will be driven by the questions you explored in your discussion groups and your critical thinking assignments based on one of the following themes: Closing the gap between College and Career Closing the gap between military service and civilian career Science Writing and the Public (Secular Science) Enterprising America and the World If you deeply engage in the lecture content, group discussions, and your critical thinking assignments, you will find that the work for your final portfolio will be a compilation of your efforts throughout the term. With your final portfolio paper, you will share your "answer" to your inquiries throughout the term in an argument essay. Use the template to complete the project: Argumentative Paper Format and Outline TemplateDownload Argumentative Paper Format and Outline Template Your essay must address the following: Be persuasive in purpose, i.e. have an argument Be directed at a specific audience Have a thesis statement, which includes a claim and reasons Support the thesis through evidence from research Summarize and respond to counterarguments Document sources both within the essay (parenthetical citations) and in an APA formatted References page Looking back at the instructions from Week 1 of this course, this may have sounded like a lot of work. But you will find that having engaged in critical thinking, research, and writing about this issue over the course of this term, has led you to the completion of your research paper. The purpose of this course is to teach you aspects of writing as a process. With that process in mind, remember that your task is to take what you have learned and shape it into a specific argument for a persuasive purpose. Purpose: to persuade the audience to accept a claim about a debatable issue Audience: specific/narrow group who can make a change regarding this issue, e.g. state or local government Voice: Third-person (no "you" voice; limited "I" voice for personal stories/examples) Length: 1,800+ words (not including References page) Citations: APA parenthetical/in-text citations throughout and APA References page com Score: 5-20% range. Sources: 8 or more research sources used and cited within the essay (and on the References page) 3+ peer-reviewed scholarly articles from the library databases 2+ magazine/newspaper/government document/book/eBook sources (or peer-reviewed articles) 2+ other credible sources, such as more general websites (may include any of the more credible source types above) 1+ personal interview
Answer Below:
Module 8: Argument Essay Michael Cuthbertson Colorado State University- Global Composition II (GT-CO2) - ENG102 Instructor- Barbara CiccarelliFebruary 10th, 2023 Science Writing and the Public (Secular Science) Science writing is crucial in disseminating scientific knowledge to the general public. However, there needs to be a more significant gap between the public's understanding of science and how scientists and science journalists present it. This gap, often referred to as the "two-culture" problem, is caused by a lack of effective communication between scientists and the general public (Barel-Ben David et al., 2020). One potential solution to this problem is using secular science writing, in which scientists communicate their research to the public. ? ? ??This paper explores the current state of science writing and the public, focusing on the potential benefits and drawbacks of secular science writing. We will examine various studies and theories, including the findings. By the end of this paper, we will better understand how to bridge the gap between the scientific community and the general public through effective and inclusive science writing. Our thesis statement is that Effective secular science writing incorporating training and cultural sensitivity can improve public understanding and engagement with science. The audience's cultural context determines how scientific information is received and understood. Therefore, scientists need to understand the cultural context of their audience and present information in a way accessible to everyone. In this paper, practical, secular science writing incorporating training and cultural sensitivity can improve public understanding and engagement with science. The two claims that will discuss in detail are, firstly, science writing is critical in fostering a better public understanding of science and bridging the gap between scientists and underrepresented communities. Secondly, inclusive and culturally sensitive science writing is essential for engaging diverse audiences. Science writing is critical in fostering a better public understanding of science and bridging the gap between scientists and underrepresented communities. The significance of science writing for conceptual learning in science cannot overstate. Effective science writing helps to demystify scientific concepts and makes complex ideas accessible to a broader audience. It is crucial for underrepresented communities who may need access to formal science education and may be intimidated by scientific jargon. Barel-Ben David, Garty, & Baram-Tsabari (2020) stated in their study, "The role of science journalism and writing in promoting scientific literacy and facilitating access to scientific information cannot overstate." To better understand the importance of science writing in promoting scientific literacy, the study found that "Online public engagement with science stories written by scientists was higher than traditional science journalism" (Barel-Ben David et al., 2020, p. 7). It indicates that people are more likely to engage with science content when scientists rather than journalists write it. This finding supports the argument that science writing can help to bridge the gap between scientists and underrepresented communities. By providing a direct connection between the public and the experts, science writing can help to demystify scientific concepts and make them more accessible to a broader audience. Furthermore, it suggests that scientists have a critical role in promoting scientific literacy and engaging the public with science. It highlights the importance of science writing in fostering a better public understanding of science and underscores the need for training and cultural sensitivity in science writing.? Inclusive and culturally sensitive science writing can lead to greater engagement with diverse audiences and improved public understanding of science. Incorporating cultural sensitivity in science writing is highlighted because diverse perspectives can lead to better communication and understanding of complex scientific concepts. It is essential when addressing underrepresented communities, who may have limited science exposure and access to scientific resources. According to the study conducted by Gere et al. (2019), "Writing can play a significant role in fostering greater understanding and engagement with science, particularly among underrepresented communities." The study found that incorporating culturally sensitive language and examples into science writing can help to make complex scientific concepts more accessible and relatable for diverse audiences. As Gere et al. (2019) stated, "Incorporating diverse perspectives, cultural references, and examples into science writing can help to make scientific concepts more relatable and accessible to a wider audience." The results of the study by Gere et al. (2019) suggest that scientists can improve public understanding and engagement with science by being culturally sensitive and inclusive in science writing. It can be particularly beneficial for underrepresented communities, who may have limited exposure to science and limited access to scientific resources. It helps to improve public understanding and engagement with science by making complex scientific concepts more accessible and relatable for diverse audiences.? One of the ways to improve public understanding and engagement with science is through effective science writing training. The importance of training in science writing is critical to foster a better public understanding of science, as well as bridging the gap between scientists and underrepresented communities. According to the Karraker et al. (2022) study, "A low-investment, high-impact approach for training stronger and more confident graduate student science writers," science writing training is essential in helping graduate students to become more confident and effective science writers. In the study, the authors found that through low-investment training programs, graduate students became more confident in their writing skills and ability to communicate scientific concepts to a broader audience. The authors stated, "Our results showed that graduate students who participated in the training had improved writing skills, stronger understanding of science communication best practices, and increased confidence in their abilities to communicate science to a non-scientific audience" (Karraker et al., 2022, p. 5). This evidence supports the claim that training in science writing can improve public understanding and engagement with science. Graduate students become better equipped to reach broader and more diverse audiences, including underrepresented communities, by gaining the skills and confidence to communicate science effectively. The training in science writing benefits not only the graduate students but also the public, as they can access information and understand complex scientific concepts in a more accessible and understandable manner. Training is essential in improving public understanding and engagement with science. By providing science writers with the skills and confidence to effectively communicate scientific concepts to diverse audiences, science becomes more accessible and understandable to a broader range of people. Science writing is vital in disseminating scientific information and making it accessible to a wide audience. It is essential in promoting the public's understanding of scientific concepts and discoveries and building bridges between the scientific community and underrepresented communities. According to Landis et al. (2020), "C?moSciWri: Resources to Help Science Writers Engage Bicultural and Bilingual Audiences in the United States," writing about science is critical in promoting scientific literacy and engaging diverse audiences. The authors note that science writing can help to "foster a better public understanding of science and bridge the gap between scientists and underrepresented communities" (Landis et al., 2020, p. 1). The authors emphasize the importance of science writing in promoting scientific literacy, which is essential for increasing public engagement with science. They argue that science writing can serve as a tool to bridge the gap between scientists and underrepresented communities by making scientific information accessible and understandable to a diverse audience. It can promote a better understanding of science and its impact on society. One possible objection to the claim that effective secular science writing that incorporates training and cultural sensitivity can improve public understanding and engagement with science is that writing style is not the only factor in determining the success of science communication. According to McGellin, Grand, and Sullivan (2021), "The use of anthropomorphic language, while sometimes effective in captivating non-expert readers, can also lead to misunderstandings and oversimplifications of scientific concepts" (p. 627). More than writing style is required to improve public understanding and engagement with science. Other factors, such as the complexity of the scientific concepts and the level of prior knowledge of the reader, also play a role. Another objection is that training in science writing may only sometimes be necessary or practical for all scientists. Stenglin and Cl?irigh (2020) argue that "the writing of scientific grants is a highly specialized activity, requiring specific knowledge and skills, as well as a thorough understanding of the funding agency's requirements" (p. 124). It suggests that not all scientists may have the time or resources to receive training in science writing, and those different types of writing may require different levels of training. Despite these objections, the argument remains strong that effective secular science writing incorporating training and cultural sensitivity can improve public understanding and engagement with science. Reiterating the importance of writing for conceptual learning in science and the need for inclusive and culturally sensitive writing to engage diverse audiences, effective scientific writing remains a crucial tool for improving the communication of scientific information to the public. All parties agree that successfully communicating scientific information to the public is crucial for fostering a better understanding and engagement with science. Using anthropomorphic language, as discussed by McGellin, Grand, and Sullivan (2021), can sometimes be effective, but it can also lead to misunderstandings and oversimplifications. The level of prior knowledge of the reader and the complexity of the scientific concepts, as noted by McGellin et al. (2021), may also play a role in determining the success of science communication. Furthermore, Stenglin and Cl?irigh (2020) argue that writing grants, a specialized activity, may not be practical for all scientists and require specific knowledge and skills. As proposed in the thesis statement, incorporating training and cultural sensitivity in science writing is one approach to addressing these issues. Prayag (2019) highlights the importance of training in science writing, stating that "writing is an important tool for conceptual learning in science and scientists must be trained to write clear, concise and comprehensive reports" (p. 421). Additionally, Bauer and Falade (2021) noted that inclusive and culturally sensitive science writing is essential for engaging diverse audiences. By incorporating training and cultural sensitivity in science writing, we can address the challenges discussed by McGellin et al. (2021) and Stenglin and Cl?irigh (2020) and improve the public's understanding and engagement with science. This approach recognizes the importance of writing for conceptual learning in science and the need for inclusive and culturally sensitive writing to engage diverse audiences while considering the complexities of the scientific concepts and the reader's prior knowledge. The paper has argued that proper training in science writing is necessary for scientists to effectively communicate their research and findings to the public. Evidence supports that targeted, culturally sensitive approaches to training science writers can effectively increase engagement with diverse audiences and improve public understanding and acceptance of scientific research. One of the key takeaways from this paper is that effective scientific writing can lead to an improved understanding of scientific concepts and ideas. Clear and accessible science writing can help readers understand complex scientific ideas in a way that is both engaging and accessible. Additionally, inclusive and culturally sensitive training in science writing can help bridge the gap between scientists and underrepresented communities. The importance of science writing in fostering a better public understanding of science cannot overstate. Proper training in science writing can help bridge the gap between the scientific community and the public, allowing for a more inclusive and equitable scientific community. Scientists must be equipped with the necessary resources and skills to effectively communicate their research and findings to a broader audience. These tools are required for the public's understanding of science to be improved, and the impact of scientific discovery can be limited. Therefore, investing in resources and training for science writing is essential for promoting scientific literacy and engagement among the public. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? References Barel-Ben David, Y., Garty, E., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2020). Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists.?PLOS ONE,?15(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222250. Bauer, M. W., & Falade, B. A. (2021). Public understanding of science: Survey research around the world. In?Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology?(pp. 238-266). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287. Gere, A. R., Limlamai, N., Wilson, E., MacDougall Saylor, K., & Pugh, R. (2019). Writing and conceptual learning in science: An analysis of assignments.?Written Communication,?36(1), 99-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318804820. Karraker, N., McWilliams, S. R., Scott, A., MortonAiken, J., Reynolds, N., Finan, E., & Lofgren, I. E. (2022). A low-investment, high-impact approach for training stronger and more confident graduate student science writers. Conservation Science and Practice, 4(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.573. Landis, B., Bajak, A., de la Hoz, J., Gonzalez, J., Gose, R., Tibbs, C., & Oskin, B. (2020). ComoSciWri: Resources to help science writers engage bicultural and bilingual audiences in the United States.?Frontiers in Communication,?5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00010. McGellin, R. T. L., Grand, A., & Sullivan, M. (2021). Stop avoiding the inevitable: The effects of anthropomorphism in science writing for non-experts.?Public Understanding of Science,?30(5), 621-640. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625219917. Stenglin, M., & Cl?irigh, C. (2020). Scientific grant application writing: Re/packaging text to enhance its impact. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 44, 100823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100823. Prayag, A. (2019). Overview and principles of scientific writing.?Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology,?40(03), 420-423. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmpo.ijmpo_131_19.More Articles From English
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
