In addition to the required readings, students must watch/listen/read relevant material to the field of environmental science related to the topics discussed in class. Students are to write a summary and reflection of each required viewings (2-3 pages single-spaced in total). Note that some weeks have more than one required viewing. If there are for example, two viewings, one of which is about 20 minutes and the other is 60 minutes, about 3/4ths of the paper should address the longer of the two viewings. Instructions for Writing Assignments The first part of the assignment is to write a summary of the main points of the video, reading or audio podcast in paragraph form. The aim of this section is to communicate the material in a well-written, succinct matter. The second part is to write a reflection and analysis of the material. This should include your reaction/thoughts/opinion about the information presented. Think about the following questions to guide your analysis of the information. 1. Did the information change your way of thinking, if so how? 2. With respect to environmental science, what information surprised you most? Why did you find these things surprising [what assumptions had you been making that are now being questioned]? 3. What new questions did the information raise in your mind? 4. Do you see any problems or shortcomings in the viewpoints, evidence being presented, or arguments being made? If the material describes a scientific study, do you think it was conducted appropriately or not? 5. Can you relate a personal experience, previous class or current knowledge to this assignment? 6. What challenges/opportunities does this issue face? 7. If an environmental problem is presented, can you think of a possible solution or an innovative idea that could be applied to the issue? The following guidelines for how to write a critique are adapted from “How to Write a Book Review, Film Review, or Other Critique” by Brittany Harrison, in collaboration with Barbara Hardie. The key to writing a good review or critique of any media is knowing what you think and why you think it. There is no wrong opinion, but in order to have an INFORMED opinion, you must explain it clearly AND base your analysis on what you have learned from the research evidence presented in class and assigned readings. As you listen to each lecture and watch each film or video, make notes of what you are learning and of the ideas and scenes that affect you most strongly. Think carefully about what is presented and analyze it. What do you think is the main point of the speaker or film? What impacted you the most and how did it provide context to the material covered in lecture? When the viewings are of researchers presenting their work, how does their approach follow principles of conservation and/or the process of science? When watching documentaries, be sure that you can distinguish between fact and opinion, bias and objectivity. Are experts presenting findings or are politicians voicing opinions? Are any issues being over-dramatized or over-stated? If so, how? What is your personal reaction to the material? Does the subject affect you, surprise you or inspire you to act? Whatever your thoughts may be, the best way to back it up is to provide examples so your reader will be better equipped to judge your arguments. DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Any words and thoughts that are not your own must be referenced. Note, however, this is a short assignment and the point is to share your thoughts, not the thoughts of others. Grading Rubric Summary Needs Improvement Meets Expectations Above Expectations Exceeds Expectations Fails to accurately summarize material. Summary is reasonably accurate (some minor errors) or organization is poor. Summary is accurate and well written. Summary is accurate, succinct, well organized, coherent and well written in a sophisticated style. Develops and communicates personal reaction/experience to the material but the position falls short of representing critical thinking. Develops and communicates personal reaction/experience to the material representing critical thinking. Demonstrates exceptional critical thinking skills, evidence of sophisticated thought, analysis, and application of material to personal experiences or knowledge base. Reflection Fails to adequately develop or communicate own perspective, reaction or positon. Organization and coherency could be improved. Demonstrated higherorder analysis, evaluation, and synthesis Paper well written in a sophisticated style, coherent and organized To complete an assignment successfully, you must: A. Fulfill every aspect of the assignment-- include every required element, answer the question being asked, and refer to any readings or materials that the assignment requires; B. Accurately summarize and synthesize material. C. Provide support for your assertions. You should present a reasoned argument with supporting references to facts and readings; D. Present your work in a professional, visually-accessible manner. Spell check and grammar check; E. Present your point of view--- whatever it might be—in a manner that shows respect for all viewpoints. Note: you will not be graded on your point of view. What matters is that you argue persuasively, which requires supporting your argument with evidence; F. Submit your paper on time in the manner requested (generally on Blackboard). “A” work: 1) 2) 3) 4) Fulfills the above requirements for a successful assignment; Demonstrates that you understand the material; Includes examples from the material that supports your observations and assertions; Demonstrates that you are thinking critically about the material and concepts. Examples of thinking critically include a. Pointing out a problem with the study, data or assertion being addressed. Example: Enric Sala’s provides a logical explanation and photographic evidence of his claim that a pristine reef is supported by an inverted trophic pyramid. However, Sala’s hypothesis at the moment can only be considered anecdotal as he has not published any peer reviewed articles on the topic; b. Using two different sources to approach a problem. Example: Viewing A and reading B provide two different and flawed solutions to the question of how to reintroduce extirpated species into the wild. Neither Smith nor Wood addresses the high costs of these measures compared to traditional preventative measures ; c. Arguing both sides of an issue. Example: A strong movement has formed to ban trophy hunting of game animals in Africa as a response to the killing of Cecil the lion. This incident has brought significant media attention and international outcry among the public. However, the politics of trophy hunting remain complex, with many scientists, governments, and conservationists supporting the practice in order to raise funds for protections. 5) Where applicable, introduces a creative or innovative idea; 6) Demonstrates outstanding written or oral explanation and/or argument 7) Communicates a reaction to the source material and develops an informed opinion based on the material, personal experience and/or outside sources (such as class discussions, lectures or other classes). See examples on page 4. “A minus” work demonstrates most of the above criteria but the critical thinking components are less well developed or the argument structure is less tight and persuasive. Examples of reflection on material: Example 1: This discussion caused me great concern. As a neighbor of Canada (growing up in Alaska), I am well aware of the discussions circulating around oil production, yet I don’t think I fully understood the environmental impacts of tar sands. In particular, I was stricken by the impacts on the indigenous populations. The idea that they either face consuming foods that contain known carcinogens or starving genuinely made me gasp in horror. I grew up surrounded by Alaska Natives, and have witnessed their grave concerns over oil production in their subsistence regions. Often, their concerns are disregarded in our state’s media; they are considered uninformed, paid off by native corporations. However, when one considers the potential consequences for a group of individuals, oil production seems less and less appealing. The public dialogue seems to forget that not everyone in the developed world is so privileged that they have the option to consume foods that are not toxic, that they do not face starvation otherwise. Human beings should not have to choose between these extremes. Additionally, while I understand that there would be economic benefits to approving the Keystone Pipeline, it seems illogical to me that anyone could argue that there are not environmental costs to consider. Indeed, this reflects our discussions of environmental and health costs once again not being factored into the costs of production. Given that carbon emissions are damaging to the environment, as evidenced by climate change, it seems conducive to the public at large to develop sustainable forms of energy (like wind and solar) so that we are less reliant upon energy sources that degrade ecosystems and contribute to global warming. Sure, tar sands may provide energy for a while, but as we have discussed in class, oil is a finite resource and cannot be sustained in the long term, let alone the negative externalities produced by its extraction. To address this problem, it would behoove the global community to take further steps to reduce carbon emissions and, in particular, to not utilize oil acquired from tar sands. I am encouraged by the recent agreement between the United States and China to reduce carbon emissions by 2025 and 2030 respectively, but I would like this to extend beyond these two emitters and include other countries, like Canada. The international community demands oil (particularly from the large deposits in the Alberta Tar Sands), so reducing this demand would be the first step in assuaging the problem, even if it is politically difficult. After all, this is not simply a Canadian problem; it is a global problem. Example 2: Other articles and interviews presented arguments based on what is ‘right’ or what has been proven scientifically. While Shapiro also made these claims, he connected deregulation to possible negative impacts on the US economy. In general, I think the strongest arguments are the ones that answer the toughest questions. A common argument against regulation is the negative economic side effects; but the precautionary steps taken by the EU show the opposite to be true. Regulation has helped Europe to become the largest consumer of cosmetics in the world, surpassing the US. The external cost of adding dangerous chemicals to everyday products also weakens the US economy in areas such as healthcare. Europe’s adaptive strategy allows their policy to evolve with the science on hand. I think over time the US market will begin to accept more regulation. As Shapiro points out, the effective lobbying by chemical companies in Washington will ensure this is a very slow process. During this process companies will continue to move to larger markets in Europe. Finally, what I found most unsettling about this and the other two articles was that regulatory agencies in the US are much more hands off than I realized. Each interview made similar comments about the blind faith in consumers of the industry selling them these products. I too was blindly optimistic that the US would have the best standards. The more I read and hear the more I’ve come to assume that my health is not a top priority to my government.
Purchase answer to see full attachment