General writing courses at City College incorporate and improves the writing of students from multiple interests but Writing for the Sciences does what no other general writing course can do. This course is tailored to those pursuing an interest in the scientific field and utilizes more specific mediums of written works like technical descriptions and IMRAD papers. Throughout the course, my writing has been changed and molded into what it is today and in doing so, has also changed my definition of writing. In the beginning, I thought general writing and scientific writing was the means of simply presenting scientific information to the reader. However, throughout the semester, I was able to improve upon my writing by incorporating various Course Learning Objectives. Being able to utilize most of them by the end of the semester, allowed me to broaden my understanding of scientific writing. Scientific writing is not just knowledge of paper but uses different sources of information and collaborative processes with peers to allow writers to create an understanding for their readers.

In the beginning, my perception of writing was limited. Writing, especially scientific writing, felt structured and organized. After years of writing lab reports, scientific writing was just a way to display information that I researched and accumulate them with other information. It was a way to place information on certain places on a paper and labeling them to help identify their meaning in terms of the position. However, despite my limited and structured approach, I was able to hit on many of the Course Learning Objectives. For example, one of the first Learning Objective was using and drawing on linguistic differences to develop rhetoric sensibility. In the first major assignment, the technical description, the format of the technical description allowed me to compose my writing with jargon that was tailored for a reader from the scientific field of biology. By using specialized vocabulary, I was able to strengthen my purpose of describing what polymerase chain reaction is, its’ history, and procedure. Using words like “DNA polymerases”, “nitrogenous bases”, and “DNA strands” helped explain the idea around polymerase chain reaction and its meaning in the scientific world. Even in my second major assignment, the scientific controversy, I continued to use jargon to further develop a rhetorical sensibility. Using words such as “pesticides”, “horizontal gene transfer”, and “genome” helped create and express my stance on GMO crops. Another Learning Objectives I was able to achieve was practicing various library resources, online databases, and the Internet to locate sources. While it was not necessary for the technical description, using sources proved to be essential because it allowed me to communicate a detailed procedure and allowed me to practice looking for them on the Internet. A mix of peer-reviewed and education websites allowed me to find the appropriate information. Because it was a technical description, a lot of the information on PCR was things already knew but by finding sources, I was able to reinforce the history and applications.

During the course, I was able to achieve more Learning Objectives as well as build upon ones I already achieved. This allowed my writing to be less rigid and provided a better purpose through the way information was separated and organized. The scientific controversy paper helped me separate two sides to a conflict while giving ample amount of evidence on whether GMO crops should continue to be used. Practicing sources from the technical paper allowed me to then integrate quotes from different peer-reviewed sources and make my paper better. Using quotes and sources was important in my writing because it allowed me to give readers two strong yet opposing arguments on GMOs, which was my primary goal. In the end, I was able to use this to my advantage by delivering a message that was not definitive but was supported by the evidence and sources I used throughout the paper. I was also able to negotiate my writing goals and audience expectations regarding genre, medium, and the rhetorical situation in the scientific controversy. The scientific controversy was a paper that did not require a concrete or one-sided conclusion. It could be open-ended. As a result, my first draft of the paper gave a one-sided conclusion where it favored the production and agriculture of GMO crops, as well as its’ distribution as a food source. However, I had to later modify the conclusion because I came to realize my essay was not about definitively choosing whether to grow and distribute GMO crops, even though the structure and wording made it seem that way. While I used information and evidence on advantages and disadvantages for both sides from multiple sources and databases, as a writer I had to come to terms that I could not give a one-sided answer, but leave it open for readers to explore and choose it upon themselves whether to use GMO crops.

Formulating and articulating a stance in my writing was also a result of negotiating with my own writing goals. As a result of giving a more open-sided conclusion, my scientific controversy had to present both sides of the argument instead of only one. This way readers can understand where and how I am making my conclusion in the paper. Thus, in the introduction, I wanted to express my stance on the thesis. In the body, I wrote about two different sides to the controversy without hinting at what my stance was. This way, when it concluded, I was finally able to talk about how despite the continuous use and advantages of GMOs, we should still proceed with caution, transparency, and regulation. Holding off my stance until the end helped me choose how the reader should think about GMO crops and ultimately made my writing more impactful.

By the end of the semester, I was able to grow and expand on what I thought scientific writing was by achieving further Learning Objectives through the discussion posts. The discussion posts were a weekly work of writing that allowed us to respond to a general question and my peers. As a result, the discussion posts enabled me to expand my engagement in collaborative and social aspects of writing processes. The writing process can be a social and collaborative experience and the discussion post was a way to build and branch off of the responses and ideas of my peers. In the first discussion post example, I replied to Alpha’s response to Margaret Atwood’s writing. While I agreed with many of the points brought up by Alpha, I also wanted to expand on the idea of consequences for humanity. Alpha’s response on the pandemic being a consequence of years of harming the environment made me realize just how important it is that we do not forget our past mistakes and one of the ways to remember is by posting it on the internet. Being able to write alongside others allows you to bounce ideas off one another. It becomes an important part of scientific writing where multiple people work on one work of writing, allowing criticism and escalating ideas that can lead to better writing.
The discussion posts also represented my ability to engage in genre analysis in writing across disciplinary contexts and beyond. One of my goals this semester was to better explain biological and chemical concepts to readers who may be unfamiliar with them. The discussion post on Toby Ord and the Animatrix allowed me to step back from my goal and talk about a different discipline. It allowed me to talk about science fiction and explore other mediums like film. This not only posed a challenge of comparing Toby Ord’s article with the film clip of the Animatrix, but it also meant I had to go beyond just the meaning in each work. In the discussion post, being able to refer to a part of the clip makes explanations easier. When talking about AI, I wish I able to contribute more to the prompt but as a pre-med student, my information on AI was constricted to the videos. Nonetheless, I wrote about the similarities yet differences Toby Ord’s and the Animatrix showed on their perspectives of AI and relationship with humans. Luckily, Nathanael was also adding to my thoughts on the relationship, demonstrating the social aspect of writing.

Throughout Writing in the Sciences, my writing changed and adapted based on the prompt. This allowed me to cover a wider range of learning objectives that I normally would not have thought possible. By achieving and practicing various learning objectives in my writing, I was able to grow as a writer. Before I thought writing was a simple tool to write information from different sources and databases. However, by the end of the semester, I was able to improve my writing by using different sources and using them to strengthen my writing, acknowledge linguistic differences, come to terms with my writing goals and audience expectations, articulate a stance, and engage with genres analysis and social aspect of writing. While I was able to achieve a large majority of learning objectives, I still felt as if I could improve on others. For example, revision and editing. While I was able to do it for the most part for each written work, I wish I could have spent more time and more thought with this learning objective to flush out grammar mistakes or errors in transitions. However, this is a learning objective that I know I will continue to work on in future writing processes.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.