PSYC 402 Science Communication Project
“Not only is it important to ask questions and find the answers, as a scientist I felt obligated to communicate with the world what we were learning.” ~ Stephen Hawking
| https://psyc402.notion.site/Handout-SciCommProj-Part-1-df5217fd099f437482381dfa1c1226d4 | https://psyc402.notion.site/Handout-SciCommProj-Part-2-7d50b2a6f2d94ffca5e83925f450b663 | https://psyc402.notion.site/3ca7675396944a7f8b017c5bb2d8c992 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning Objectives 🏁 | ✔️ Consume examples of science communication |
✔️ Practice summarizing science concepts for a general audience (short)
✔️ Evaluate science communication
✔️ Paper 1 - Write an executive summary (5-7 pgs) | ✔️ Summarize best practices for science journalism
✔️ Create a pitch for your science communication piece
✔️ Paper 2 - Write a position paper (5-7 pgs)
✔️ Provide peer feedback | ✔️ Paper 3 - Write a compelling and rigorous 500 – 1,000 word science communication piece about memory for The Record
✔️ Provide peer feedback | | Due Dates 📌 | Homework 1 (Part B): September 30 Homework 2 (Part C): October 3 Paper 1: October 10 | Pitch: Oct 30 Paper 2 Final: Nov 23 Peer Review # 1: Nov 29 | Paper 3 Draft v1: Dec 10 Peer Review # 2: Dec 13 Paper 3 Final: Dec 15 | | Possible Points | Paper 1: 150 points | Pitch: 50 points Peer Review # 1: 50 points Paper 2 Final: 150 points | Peer Review # 2: 50 points Paper 3 Final: 150 points |
📌 All assignments due by end of day unless I indicate otherwise.
Instructions. In Paper 1 you identified a broad social issue (e.g., ) and summarized how psychologists have theorized and studied the topic. In Paper 2, you will present both sides of an arguable opinion about one aspect of your Paper 1 topic.
The goal of Paper 2 is to convince your audience that your opinion is valid and defensible. To develop and bolster your argument, you will do a deeper dive into the literature than you did for Paper 1. You will be tasked with defending your position with a well-crafted, thoughtful discussion of relevant empirical evidence. The evidence you uncover should ensure the validity of your claims, as well as refute any counterclaims.
This means you will need to explicitly address all — or at least the most thorny — counter arguments to your claim. Your defense of one side of the argument and rebuttal of the counter-argument should have the effect of demonstrating your well-researched knowledge of the topic. Your argument should be convincing to a reader who has no expertise with the primary source material, and who has not read the empirical articles you discuss.
Be especially careful to identify the correct counterargument. For example, if you were arguing for a particular solution to slowing climate change, the counterclaim you would address should argue that that solution is not the right one. You would not need to address the claim that climate change is not real as that is not the direct counterargument to your argument.