At the beginning of the semester, I was so excited to learn how to write science papers. I knew that the amount of work that I would be asked to do would be harder than the amount of work that I was asked to do in my previous writing courses since, writing a science paper is completely different than writing a regular essay. At the beginning of the semester, I realized that I would have to work really hard in order to do well in the course since I did not know how to read or write science papers. Hence, if I wanted to pass the semester and gain the knowledge needed to do science papers, I would have to work really hard. There are just a few weeks left of the semester, and I can proudly say that this class is one of the classes where I learned the most. Therefore, this paper would focus on how much I have improved on this semester in my Writing for the Sciences class based on all the work I have done.

During the semester we explore and analyze, in writing and reading, a variety of genres and rhetorical situations. There were three major essays throughout the semester, and each one of them had a unique way in which it would be written. The first paper was an informative review paper. The informative review paper informs the public about a certain issue by showing to them both sides of the argument and supporting both of them with evidence and facts without taking a position. The informative review paper consisted of informing the public about cloning in specific therapeutic and reproductive cloning. One of my main focus for the paper was to explain and inform the public about the advantages and disadvantages of cloning to the world. The second paper was a position paper, in a position paper the writer chooses and support a side of the argument. What makes the process of creating a position paper different from an informative review paper is that in the position paper as the name suggests you have to take a position and support your position. While on the informative review paper as the name also suggest you inform the audience about a certain issue or topic without taking a position directly. The position paper consisted of demonstrating that solar energy is the best alternative energy source. Before I wrote the critical research paper, (which is the third paper) I wrote a research proposal. In the proposal, I was presenting my research and explaining the reasons why the government and other companies should fund my research. In a critical research paper, you would normally conduct a research and write a report in IMERaD format. However, since we were not able to conduct our own research, we read a research that was already conducted, and we found holes in it and based on those holes we suggested a research extension.  After, we would prove whether the hypothesis that we created was right or wrong using other research results and articles. My focus for this paper was to find if there exist a gene that would explain why men have a harder time dealing with stress than women.

Throughout the semester I learned and developed different strategies for reading, drafting, collaborating, revising, and editing. One of the reading strategies I used to write my paper is that before I started to write any of my papers, I always investigate all of the sides of the argument. After hours of reading both sides of the argument, I would choose which side had the strongest evidence. I was able to select the side with the strongest evidence easily because while reading every article I would highlight and make some notes on the side of each paragraph and after I finish reading all of the articles I would only read the notes and the highlighted parts.  Also, I read the articles several times because I notice that when you read something more than once, every time you read it again you would understand more the article and find a new interpretation of what you already read. After choosing the side I would support, the strategy I used to draft my papers was that I always took a sheet of paper and wrote in two to three sentences what each of the paragraphs would consist of. After I started to write all the things and ideas that came to my mind in a paragraph form, and that would be my first draft. After I finished with my first draft I always had a partner from my class to read it during the peer review sessions, and they would give me their opinions on it. The strategy I used to revise and edit my papers is that after I check for my grammar, spelling, and paragraph structure and finalize my paper, with the paper I thought was the final draft I always went to the writing center and with a professional I revised and edited all my papers one last time. Lastly, after I have done all the steps described above, I would submit my final draft.

While writing my papers it was important for me to learn how to negotiate my own writing goals and audience expectations regarding conventions of genre, medium, and rhetorical situation. In other words, while writing all of my papers it was important to keep in mind that each paper would have different audiences. For the informative review paper my audience were secondary audiences that do not have a lot or any knowledge about science. Therefore, I would have to explain any complicated terms and ideas in a simple and clear way to make sure that they understand my argument and what I was trying to imply in each paragraph.  On my position paper, I was writing an article, for the ScienceLife Magazine, therefore, my primary audience were subscribers of the ScienceLife Magazine, who are interested in science. Hence, they would have a little knowledge, about science, however, some complicated terms I would have to explain them to make sure they understand what I meant. Lastly, in my critical research paper, I was writing to both primary and secondary audiences. The primary audience is the people who I was writing to and explaining why they should extend the research and the people who might be interested in why men have a hard time dealing with depression than women, who do not know anything about science but are interested in the issue.

It was important for me to engage in the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes in the class. Professor Williams has a great method to help students engaged with their classmates and revise their work at the same time. Before she collects the final draft of any of the paper, she had two peer review sections, in which my classmates and I would read each other’s papers and we would give each other’s feedback to make our papers stronger and clear. Those peer review sections help me with the structures and ideas I presented in my paper. Another writing process that helped me a lot during the semester was that sometimes when we read an article, we would make comments on the discussion tab on blackboard, and we would share our opinions with our classmates and see in which part we agree and disagree to then discuss about it. Through those experiences, I learned that it is good to led others criticize your work because that is how you would have a strong and almost perfect work at the end. If it were not for the comments of my classmates, I would not have noticed the little mistakes I made, that could have cost me some points. To conclude, the peer reviews also gave me the opportunity to improve the way I interpret my ideas because hearing what others thought was good and bad about my papers or ideas opened my mind to new interpretations.

Understanding how to use print and digital technologies to address a range of audiences is important. Including a visual image in your science paper is an effective method because science papers are hard to interpret, hence, it is difficult for some people to understand certain terms if they do not see what’s going on. A visual image would explain to the reader certain terms and process visually (if people see the process instead of seeing strange and complicated words they would feel more comfortable with different scientific ideas). I believe that people understand better when they see how something works rather than reading about it. The picture below is an example of one of the images I included in my informative review paper to help my audience understand better the process of therapeutic and reproductive cloning:

I included the Image below in my position paper to explain to my audience how PV cells work:

Lastly, I included the image below in my critical research paper to demonstrate that there might exist a correlation between the way in which men handle depression caused by stress and suicides rates since males have higher suicides than women:

Finding the correct science sources for each of my paper was not an easy job. Looking for evidence is a dangerous process and it should be done carefully since sometimes you can steal someone’s ideas and interpreted as your own. I was able to determine if my sources credible or not by using the “CRAP” method, I know it sounds offensive but it is the best method to evaluate any kind of sources. C stands for currency, this part helps you analyze how recent the information that you are gathering is. R stands for reliability it helps you analyze if your article is based on facts or just on someone’s ideas. A stands for authority, you want to make sure that the place from where you are getting your information is a place that has a good reputation and has always talked with the truth, but also you want to know in which kind of genre your source falls into. And lastly, the P stands for purpose/point of view, and it helps you to determine if the author is only using his/her opinion without backing it up with facts or they trying to convince you of something. I used different websites and databases to find all my sources, for my informative review paper to complete my assignment I used the articles provided by the professor and the City College of New York database. For my position paper, I used the City College of New York opposing point views database, the articles presented by the professor, and the other scholarly article that I found on the google scholar database. Using a credible database is important because some companies would conduct their own research and created their own report, and write a paper supporting their viewpoint based on their own evidence, hence, they could make the side they want you to support more appealing.

Composing texts that integrate my stance with the appropriate sources using strategies such as summary, critical analysis, interpretation, synthesis, and argumentation is difficult. However, I was able to integrate my position with my sources easily. In my informative review paper, I included both a concession and a counterargument in the same paragraph, I was able to do this easily because I recognize and explained what the other side of the argument believes and their reasons why they believe it. Hence, I included in the paragraph what they are arguing and also provided the evidence that supports their side of the argument, which is that they believed that cloning would cause a loss of individuality and uniqueness (the concession part). However, after I acknowledge their side I counter argue it by presenting my side and presenting evidence demonstrating why my argument is stronger. The paragraph below is the paragraph that I was referring to in the lines above :

“But what does reproductive cloning have to do with the harvesting of organs? Well, is it not also cruel that couples cannot have a child because they were born infertile? Despite the good outcomes that reproductive cloning might offer to humans, many people have opposed this idea for a variety of reasons. People who opposed human cloning have argued that, the cloning of a humans would create a loss of individuality and uniqueness among the  population. But despite this idea, studies have shown that “twins who have identical DNA does not prevent them from possessing individuality and freedom of expression.” Therefore, if twins who are physically and genetically identical can develop uniqueness why can’t clones with the same traits? Also, many other studies have shown that identical DNA is not the only factor that can determine the uniqueness of a person/clone, “identity, individuality, personality development and all the characteristic that would make a person unique are the result of the interaction between genetics and the environment.” In other words, genetics alone cannot determine the uniqueness of an individual. The qualities of the clone or person, but also the type of environment in which they grow up would play an important role in determining their uniqueness or lack of it.”

On my position paper, to have a stronger paper I included some counter arguments and concessions. I acknowledge the opposite side of the argument by providing a quote that explains why some people are against solar energy.  After explaining and supporting the opposite side, I then included a piece of evidence demonstrating why the opposite side does not have a strong argument to go against solar energy. The idea that batteries can be paired with solar energy, help me demonstrate that not being able to transport the energy gathered from PV cells to other places is not a strong argument of why solar energy would not work. Providing this idea also help me demonstrate why my argument which states that solar energy is the best alternative energy source is stronger. Ex:

“Despite all the benefits that solar energy has to offer to us and our environment solar energy is often seen as inefficient.  Opposers of solar energy have argued that PV technology would not be able to produce the necessary energy to power all the homes and buildings of the United States and the world…“If there were large energy-producing facilities in the deserts, how would the energy be delivered to New York, Boston, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Chicago, thousands of kilometers distant? High-voltage power lines? Through whose neighborhood?”3 Not being able to transport the energy gathered from solar energy camps through the different places where the energy is needed is one of the reasons why solar energy is not seen as an efficient energy source. However, this limitation is not a reason why the government should not change to solar energy because solar energy does not have to work alone to function. Batteries are another type of energy source that can work with solar energy and together help power the US. The energy obtain from the photovoltaic cells can be store in batteries and in that way transport them to any part of the United States and the world.” (paragraph 5 on the paper)

Also for my position paper I included the evidence below to support my claim which states that “solar energy would not only be beneficial for the environment but also for the economy since it would increase jobs opportunities”:

“It is expected that by 2020 there would be over 150,000 Americans employed in the PV industry.” (Hamer, 2006)

Deciphering difficult sources is a long process, however, it is worth it. One of the strategies I used to decipher difficult science sources is that after I selected my sources, I converted the first sentence of each paragraph into questions. I feel that each paragraph most of the time would present an issue or argument and then solve it. Therefore if the first sentence is a question the remaining sentences would be the answer to the question, that was how I was able to identify the motivating issue on all my sources. I was able to understand the articles that I was supposed to include in my paper because I wrote next to most of the paragraphs the main issue and then at the end I only read each main issue, this process allowed to understand what the paper was really about and which were the main concerns in the articles. I also look up the definitions of some words because sometimes if you do not understand an important word that is in a sentence, you could interpret it wrong. Also, I read the articles several times. To conclude, writing a science paper is difficult however when you have the right strategies and ideas you would find the writing process enjoyable.