You will write a critical essay about a STEM issue that is also being argued (discussed) in society–that is, outside of the field (loosely interpreted). Good topics focus on what the engineers/scientists are discussing (i.e. the technology, solution, approach) that is relevant to a wider audience. Bad topics are too narrow or specific to the discipline (e.g. what configuration is best for taking TEM images) or are too general (e.g. ethical or religious arguments over whether or not a technology should be used).

DO NOT USE THESE TOPICS:

• vaccines
• climate change

You might want to consider issues in your field. Better papers are those focused on an issue or technology that has multiple sides, not just two polar opposites. For example, you could (although it might be very challenging) write about the argument around unifying the standard model with general relativity (string theory, quantum field theory, etc) and how physicists are divided. How does this qualify as argued in society? Just watch NatGeo or the Science Channel–or read Stephen Hawking, Neil degrasse Tyson, Lisa Randall, and so on.

You will synthesize multiple sources to show how different writers discuss and provide evidence for their viewpoints on a subject. You should recognize that even seemingly "factual" topics have argument and slant–and then point out the rhetorical choices the authors made in making those arguments.

This paper expects you to:

• summarize the argument/issue. What are the main points being argued?
• present the facts objectively; present the views of multiple sides. DO NOT argue a point and DO NOT use slanted language that shows us your opinion.
• be informative; present the work/ideas/opinions of the authors/speakers–NOT your own. This paper is not an "I" paper; it's not about you.
• evaluate the rhetorical strategies and arguments used. What is the stronger argument? Focus more on the claims people are making and the ways they are supporting their claims rather than assessing the claims themselves. That is, I don't want you to get too wrapped up in the science/engineering details of a technology, process, or approach.
• support your writing with evidence using academic research (APA citations).

We will discuss sample topics and brainstorm ideas in class. For this assignment on Canvas, upload your outline. Read all of the directions below.

Audience: Your classmates (STEM backgrounds)

Purpose: To analyze a STEM argument, evaluate the positions, and inform your readers.

Context: Your essay must include research using at least THREE sources from peer-reviewed journals. You may, but are not required to, include other credible sources (such as newspapers, government sites). Your paper will be shared with the class.

Logistics: Length of 1200-1600 words. Follow APA format (Times 12pt, double spaced, etc), but do not write an abstract. Include a References page with at least three sources. Cite your sources in text following APA format.

Outline directions

Your thesis here should be one of evaluation, that illustrates your critical thinking and evaluation of the argument. You must include claims and evidence that support your thesis.

Your outline should include enough information for readers to know your approach to the subject–your summary, your analysis, your evaluation. REMEMBER TEA/PIE PARAGRAPHS. I don't care what numbering system you use (Roman, decimal, etc). Using fragments is OK.

Your outline should make it clear what material you are covering, including research you are referencing.

See https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/544/03/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. for information on writing outlines.

Create your outline in Word or Google Docs and upload a .doc/docx file here. Also, bring a printed copy to class for workshop.

More notes on this assignment

The biggest misunderstanding is seeing the CA as a persuasive paper. It's not. The CA, however, is about EVALUATING a STEM argument being discussed by scientists/engineers and NOT by the public although the issue must have relevance to the public and may be discussed by the public. Think of this assignment as listening in to an argument and then telling someone what positions they were arguing about (and to what extent) and who made the better case.

Remember the argument that happened a while back about Pluto? Here’s an overview of the STEM argument, FYI: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33462184 (Links to an external site.

I’m going to use this STEM argument as an example here, but of course, this STEM argument has already been decided and thus would not be appropriate for this assignment. Your STEM argument must be currently occurring.

Title should reflect the STEM argument being made. Ex: "Pluto: Redefining what is a planet"

Intro should give us the context for the argument: Why do we need to redefine what a "planet" is?

What is being argued: How should we define planets given that so many Kuiper-belt objects have been discovered? (This section is a summary of the argument and brief explanation of positions in the argument. Avoid explaining the technology except as needed to set the context for the argument. Be brief!)

Argument positions: Mass of planet, shape of planet, single object in that point of orbit, shape/plane of orbit (This section would present the positions being made, what are the “sides” of the argument. This should involve more than just polarities (black-white thinking is rare in STEM).)

How is the argument being made? (This section would summarize/quote from various points of view and illustrate more detail about the various positions in the argument. For our Pluto topic, it would show those arguing that mass/size matters, those saying orbit plane matters, and so on.)

To what extent is the argument being made? (This would be any qualifiers people are making, such as the mass of the planet should be larger than X when others say larger than Y or Z. This could be included in the previous section.)

Evaluating the arguments. This section would analyze the approaches being taken—but not the positions themselves! For example, you wouldn’t write that those arguing for a certain planetary mass are “right”. Instead, you’d say (maybe) that they are arguing for a defined mass and that approach is logical and reasonable. Maybe someone is way out there on wanting size Q, so you could say that most astronomers think that argument is unreasonable because… NOTE: you are quoting what OTHERS say about the argument and evaluating their approaches; you are NOT taking a position on the argument itself.

Conclusion: State your reasoning about whose argument/position seems to be most effective (think about how receptive the audience is to these approaches) and why. What logical appeals do they use? How do they use evidence/studies in their arguments? How do they organize their arguments? (Note: you don't have to answer all of these questions.)

After reading the paper, we should know

1) why is this STEM argument important,

2) what are the major positions in the argument,

3) what approaches are being taken in the argument, and

4) whose approach is most effective and why.

Student learning objectives for this paper

LO 1: locate and evaluate sources, through library research, and integrate research through appropriate citation and quotation
LO 2: present effective arguments that use a full range of legitimate rhetorical and logical strategies to articulate and explain their positions on complex issues in dialogue with other points of view

LO 3: locate, interpret, evaluate, and synthesize evidence in a comprehensive way in support of your ideas