GEO 300 Recitation: Winter 2014 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – GEO 300 Recitation: Winter 2014 PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 71d8de-YjY3Y



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

GEO 300 Recitation: Winter 2014

Description:

Sustainability for the Common Good GEO 300 Recitation: Winter 2014 TA: Jane Darbyshire darbyshj_at_onid.orst.edu Office Hours: MONDAY 3-4PM & THURSDAY 2-3PM – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:17
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: Bret140
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: GEO 300 Recitation: Winter 2014


1
Sustainability for the Common Good
  • GEO 300 Recitation Winter 2014
  • TA Jane Darbyshire
  • darbyshj_at_onid.orst.edu
  • Office Hours
  • MONDAY 3-4pm Thursday 2-3pm
  • (or by appointment, Wilkinson 204)
  • Mailbox Wilkinson 104 (closes at 5pm)

2
Recitations
  • Week 1
  • Intro
  • Critical Thinking (CT) Papers
  • Turn in Assignment 1 Carbon Footprint (Friday
    sections only)
  • Week 3
  • CT Paper Workshop
  • Week 7
  • Group Project Work Day
  • Weeks 8, 9, 10
  • Group presentations

3
Critical Thinking Papers
  • Instructions and tips to help you succeed!
  • http//www.geo.oregonstate.edu/classes/geo300/ctw1
    4.html

4
Paper Format
  • Heading
  • Title
  • Interpretation
  • Analysis
  • Evaluation
  • Inference
  • Explanation
  • Self-regulation
  • Works cited (must be 21st century (2000 later
    accepted)

5
Example topic
  • Prompt "Natural gas production in the US has
    increased dramatically, mostly because of the
    "fracking" technique to release gas from rock
    deep underground.  Natural gas prices have
    plummeted, resulting in more natural gas power
    plants, fewer wind turbine farms, less coal being
    burned.   But natural gas is still a hydrocarbon
    fossil fuel, and each cubic foot we burn puts
    more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Take a
    facet of this topic and run with it." 

6
Heading
  • Include
  • Example
  • Name
  • Student ID
  • Question
  • GEO 300
  • Recitation day/time (W8, F10, F12)
  • TA Name (Jane Darbyshire)
  • CT and due date
  • Word count total, plus sub-totals for analysis
    and for other combined sections
  • Jane Example
  • ID NUMBER
  • QUESTION 1-1
  • GEO 300, Fall 13
  • TA Jane
  • CT1 due 1/9/201
  • Word Count 549 (Analysis 405 Other 144)

7
Title
  • Instructions
  • Example
  • I should be able to tell your topic and your
    position from the title.
  • You can make it clever/witty but dont be
    offensive.
  • The precautionary principle and Marcellus
    hydrofracking Why policymakers should rethink
    the loose regulations around injecting mutagenic
    cancer-water into our communities

8
Interpretation
  • Instructions
  • Example
  • This is your very short introduction paragraph.
  • Introduce why the topic is important, explain it
    very simply (if needed), and then conclude with
    your thesis statement.
  • Thesis statement your argument/position on the
    topic and how you will support your position.
  • Recently, natural gas extraction in the Marcellus
    Shale region became economically profitable due
    to advances in hydrofracturing, which involves
    injecting high-pressured water solution into the
    ground to break shale and release gas. However,
    because hydrofracking is unproven and potentially
    harmful to both humans and the environment,
    policymakers must exercise the precautionary
    principle.

It doesnt matter what your opinion is, only
that you support it with a well-written essay
that follows the instructions.
9
Analysis
  • Instructions
  • Example
  • Use peer-reviewed literature to form an argument
    and support your position.
  • Come up with 2 or 3 main points for your
    argument.
  • Write a short paragraph for each one, citing your
    PR lit.
  • Dont waste space explaining details of what
    something is or how it works.
  • Three points
  • Hydrofracking is not proven to be safe, and may
    be dangerous.
  • Hydrofracking can lead to environmental harm.
  • Hydrofracking can harm people and communities.
  • Each of these points supports the thesis about
    using the precautionary principle and
    regulating hydrofracking.

10
Example Analysis
  • Policymakers should restrict Marcellus Shale
    development because hydrofrackings safety is
    unproven. In fact, outside flawless execution,
    hydrofracking will cause harm. Transportation
    spills, well leaks, groundwater leaching, site
    discharge, and poor wastewater disposal can all
    lead to water contamination (Rozell Reaven,
    2011 p. 1391). Contamination is an issue if the
    frackwater is dangerous, but scientists cannot
    confirm or deny the danger because drilling
    companies keep the frackwater additives
    undisclosed (Engelder, Howarth, Ingraffea,
    2011 p. 271 Kargbo, Wilhelm, Campbell, 2010
    p. 5681). Finally, the development is happening
    faster than scientists can study the full
    social-environmental impacts, thus fleecing
    policymakers who will not realize the danger
    until it is too late (Engelder et al., 2011 p.
    271).
  • What scientists have learned about hydrofracking
    suggests that it can devastate the environment.
    First, hydrofracking requires development of
    roads, wells, and retention ponds, requiring
    resource use and causing environmental
    disturbance (Kargbo et al., 2010 pp. 5680-81).
    Then, it requires massive water withdrawals from
    local rivers, which upsets the balance in
    freshwater ecosystems disturbance (Kargbo et al.,
    2010 p. 5681). Furthermore, dangerous
    contamination from hydrofracking additives can
    happen when frackwater leaches into surface or
    groundwater, or if it is improperly
    disposed/reused (Kargbo et al., 2010 p. 5681).
    Marcellus Shale, particularly, produces risky
    quantities of arsenic and selenium in
    hydrofracking wastewater (Balaba Smart, 2012
    p. 1441). Even air quality is affected by
    hydrofracking, which produces toxic, carcinogenic
    air pollutants and elevated levels of
    ground-level ozone (Engelder et al., 2011 p.
    271). Thus, even if unintended pollution and
    seepage are avoided, Marcellus gas extraction
    still harms the local environment via its
    infrastructure, water consumption, and air
    pollution.

11
Example Analysis
  • Finally, policymakers should regulate Marcellus
    hydrofracking because of its human costs. The
    environmental contamination can have profound
    effects on human health (e.g. cancer, death,
    mutations), particularly if frackwater enters
    drinking water supplies yet, no public health
    experts are included in Marcellus advisory
    commissions (Goldstein, Kriesky, Pavliakova,
    2012 p. 483). Furthermore, the boom in shale
    development destabilized communities, increasing
    traffic, degrading infrastructure, decreasing
    quality of life, and creating conflict (Pifer,
    2011 p. 625 Weigle, 2011 p. 7). Issues with
    the leasing process, fairness of lease
    terms/payments, and encroachment on adjacent
    property rights have all emerged due to
    underdeveloped regulations and inadequate case
    law surrounding gas exploitation (Pifer, 2011 p.
    628 Lamarre, 2011 p. 457). In sum,
    hydrofracking has negative effects on human
    health and wellbeing, and current
    legal/regulatory structures are insufficient to
    protect communities.
  • Use topic sentences and conclusion sentences in
    your paragraphs to give them focus.
  • Support your sub-points with evidence.

12
Evaluation
  • Instructions
  • Example
  • Write a sentence explaining the bias of authors
    of at least TWO of your sources.
  • Be specific.
  • Tip Look for authors bios. Where did they work?
    Who funded their research?
  • When mentioning the bias, indicate how they might
    be biased.
  • Alternative limitation of two articles.
  • Kargbo, Wilhelm, and Campbell all work for the
    EPA, which is constantly threatened due to gas
    company lobbyists. Weigle and Rozell worked for
    state DECs, giving them conservationist,
    pro-regulation biases.

13
Inference
  • Instructions
  • Example
  • Think of some consequence of your topic that you
    havent already talked about.
  • What if? Think outside the box.
  • If this (or that) does (or doesnt) happen, then
  • Make a prediction.
  • Think of a specific situation, ecosystem, or
    population for your inference.
  • Hydrofracking will create a boom and bust in the
    Marcellus region, leaving communities with
    abandoned sites, fewer jobs, and degraded
    ecosystems.
  • Hydrofracking is a distraction, and it is slowing
    investment and advancement in greener energy
    technology.

14
Explanation
  • Instructions
  • Example
  • Concise conclusion
  • Remind us of your thesis statement and how youve
    proved your point.
  • Policymakers must implement regulations on
    Marcellus exploitation to curtail further
    environmental and human harm. Decision-makers
    must exercise the precautionary principle,
    forcing drillers to prove their safety and remain
    accountable.

15
Self-regulation
  • Instructions
  • Example
  • Think of your own bias.
  • Why did you take the position you did?
  • Dig deep!
  • I grew up in Pennsylvania, where my family and
    friends still live.
  • Pennsylvania is affected by the issue, so living
    there in turn affects the authors opinions

16
Reference List 101
  • Basic form (use author order from the article!)
  • Author, A. A., Author, B. B., Author, C. C.
    (Year). Title of article. Title of Periodical,
    volume number(issue number), pages. 
  • Three to seven authors
  • Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C. R., Berry,
    A., Harlow, T., Bach, J. S. (2003). There's
    more to self-esteem than whether it is high or
    low The importance of stability of
    self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
    Psychology, 65(1), 1190-1204.
  • More than 7 authors
  • After the sixth author's name, use an ellipses in
    place of the author names. Then provide the final
    author name. There should be no more than seven
    names. 
  • Miller, F. H., Choi, M. J., Angeli, L. L.,
    Harland, A. A., Stamos, J. A., Thomas, S. T., . .
    . Rubin, L. H. (2009). Web site usability for the
    blind and low-vision user. Technical
    Communication, 57(4), 323-335.
  • Source Purdue OWL for APA
  • OTHER FORMATS (MLA etc) ARE OK, BUT BE
    CONSISTENT!

17
Reference List 101
  • Do not use et al to replace author names in
    your references section no matter what format you
    choose to use.
  • Journal articles you found in an online database
    that are published in a print Journal (even if
    you access the content online) are NOT web
    resources and should not be referenced as such.
  • Do not include the long, crazy EBSCO (or other
    database) URL to the article. That expires, and
    you will lose some formatting points.

18
Reference List 101
  • Pay attention to
  • Capitalization of title
  • Capitalization of Journal Name
  • Italicize Journal Name Vol.
  • Keep list of authors in the same order as they
    appear in the article.
  • Alphabetize the listings by first authors last
    name.
  • Barnes, T. (2005). A fistful of paintballs.
    Journal of Community, 4(1), 12-36.
  • Chang, B.F., Barnes, T., Perry, B. (2005). The
    first Chang dynasty. Journal of Community, 2(1),
    32-66.
  • Nadir, A., Edison, A., Hawthorn, P (2012).
    Digital estate planning. Journal of Community,
    69(20), 19-24.
  • Winger, J. Nadir, A. (2011). Remedial chaos
    theory. Journal of Community, 3(3), 1-7.

19
Citations 101
  • A Work by Two Authors 
  • Research by Wegener and Petty (2004 p. 117)
    supports...
  • (Wegener Petty, 2004 p. 117)
  • A Work by Three to Five Authors List all the
    authors in the signal phrase or in parentheses
    the first time you cite the source.
  • (Kernis, Cornell, Sun, Berry, Harlow, 2003 pp.
    33-37)
  • In subsequent citations, only use the first
    author's last name followed by "et al." in the
    signal phrase or in parentheses (Kernis et al.,
    2003 p. 39).
  • In et al., et should not be followed by a period.
  • Six or More Authors Use the first author's name
    followed by et al. in the signal phrase or in
    parentheses.
  • Harris et al. (2001 p. 221) argued...
  • (Harris et al., 2001 pp. 221-223)
  • For ALL citations add the page number(s) on
    which you found the info (needs to match article
    page interval).
  • Punctuation goes AFTER the citation (Watson,
    2013 p. 452).

20
Using your sources in-text
  • AVOID Watson (2012 pg. 1) argues that using
    lots of quotations can be tedious for the reader,
    especially when the exact wording of the idea is
    not particularly important.
  • Not plagiarized, but it would flow better if
    paraphrased.
  • PLAGIARISM Using lots of quotations can be
    tedious for the reader, and thus, we should
    paraphrase (Watson, 2012 p. 1).
  • Did not use quotation marks around the quoted
    part.
  • PLAGIARISM Direct quotations bog down text.
  • Used an idea from a source, but did not cite it
  • BETTER, but still avoid Watson (2012 pg. 1)
    argues that direct quotations can be superfluous.
  • Paraphrased but in these papers, we dont want
    you to waste space talking about the authors.
  • Instead, simply paraphrase the results that
    support your position.
  • BEST Direct quotations complicate essays
    unnecessarily (Watson, 2012 p. 1). Paraphrasing
    helps your ideas flow more smoothly.

21
Finding PR Sources
  • Acceptable Sources
  • books or PR journal articles
  • published from 2000-2013

Good Source (PR, has all the info you need)
Not Great, but Okay (no author- real PR articles
are longer have authors listed but this is
acceptable as long as it comes up in the PR
search)
22
Making your References/Citations
Reference listing 7 or fewer authors, must list
all
Rahm, B. G., Bates, J. T., Bertoia, L. R.,
Galford, A. E., Yoxtheimer, D. A., Riha, S. J.
(2013). Wastewater management and Marcellus Shale
gas development Trends, drivers, and planning
implications. Journal of Environmental
Management, 120, 105-113.
In text More than 5 authors, use et al. every
time
Here, I summarized information from the article
in my own words (Rahm et al., 2013 p. 110-111).
23
Avoid Getting a Zero
  • There are four ways to guarantee yourself a ZERO
    SCORE on the paper
  • How to avoid the zero.
  • Cite at least 4 peer-reviewed sources from the
    21st century (2001 on)
  • Cite every fact or idea you use with an in-text
    citation and reference listing. Dont copy-paste
    ANYTHING or copy exact wording.
  • Must be 400-450 words in Analysis and 100-150
    words in all other sections combined Make sure
    the TOTAL doesnt add up to more than 550.
  • Use headings, and dont forget any sections.
  • 1. Unacceptable sources.
  • 2. Not properly citing all four of your primary
    sources in the text of your paper.
  • 3. Not meeting the word counts.
  • 4. Not using the required format, i.e.,
    Interpretation, Analysis, Evaluation, etc.

24
Learning to be concise Its hard.
  • Before
  • After
  • In the last decade, natural gas extraction in the
    Marcellus Shale region became economically
    profitable due to advances in hydrofracturing
    (also hydrofracking, fracking) technology.
    Hydrofracking involves injecting high-pressured
    water solution into the ground, thus breaking the
    shale and releasing pockets of gas.
    Hydrofracking has led to a boom in development.
    However, because hydrofracking is unproven and
    potentially harmful to both humans and the
    environment, policymakers must exercise the
    precautionary principle.
  • Recently, natural gas extraction in the Marcellus
    Shale region became economically profitable due
    to advances in hydrofracturing, which involves
    injecting high-pressured water solution into the
    ground to break shale and release gas. However,
    because hydrofracking is unproven and potentially
    harmful to both humans and the environment,
    policymakers must exercise the precautionary
    principle.

25
Logistics
  • Must be typed, legible
  • Print on front and back of 1 piece of paper
  • (-2 if you dont, 1 bonus if you do)
  • Attach correct grading half-sheet (or -15)
  • Available on the website
  • Initial grading half-sheet (or -5)
  • Bring a final copy to week 3 recitation.

26
Schedule
  • Recitations Weeks 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10
  • Week 3 Bring CT1 near-final draft (Recitation
    workshop)
  • Wednesday Night Section CT 1 Final Due Friday
    January 24th (TA Mailbox)
  • Week 4 MWF Sections CT 1 Final Due Monday
    January 27th (in lecture)
  • Week 6 CT2 due (in lecture)
  • Week 7 Group Project Work Day in Recitation

27
Schedule
  • Week 8 Energize Corvallis Due (Feb 28)
  • Group Project Presentations (recitation)
  • Week 9 CT3 due
  • Group Project Presentations (recitation)
  • Week 10
  • Group Project Presentations (recitation)

28
The Contract
  • I understand that I will receive an undisputable
    zero score on my CT paper
  • If I have more than 550 total words in my paper
  • If my analysis section is less than 400 or
    greater than 450 words
  • If my other combined sections (besides analysis)
    have word counts less than 100 or greater than
    150
  • If I do not reference at least four peer-reviewed
    sources (journal articles or books) published
    between 2000 and 2013
  • If I dont cite all my sources correctly in the
    body of my paper, or if I plagiarize
  • If I do not follow the format of the paper (with
    all the appropriate sections and subheadings)
  • Furthermore, I understand that
  • Newspapers, magazines, and websites are not
    peer-reviewed sources.
  • Not every source on EBSCO or OSU libraries is
    peer-reviewed, and I must take precautions to
    narrow the search to PR-only sources.
  • The ways to get a zero (word count limits, PR
    source requirements) are completely rigid and
    inflexible.
  • E.g. If I cite 1 of 4 sources from 1999, I have
    failed to meet the PR source requirement, and I
    will get a zero on my paper.
  • Not realizing that I didnt meet the requirements
    (a bad source I thought was good, a miscalculated
    word count, etc.) does not exempt me from the
    zero score.
  • Signing up for this class means that I am
    beholden to the course/assignment rules, and
    staying in the class implies that the rules apply
    to me. I can drop the class if I do not like the
    rules, but the rules will not be changed for me.
  • My TA wants to help me succeed, and she can
    provide lots of helpful feedback BEFORE I turn in
    my paper.
  • My sad story (but I wont be able to graduate!
    but I will lose my scholarship! ) will make my
    TA very sad, but she will not be able to she is
    not allowed to change my score out of pity.
  • Thus, I verify that
  • I, and I alone (not my TA or anyone else), am
    responsible for my score on CT papers.
  • I will do everything in my power to avoid a zero
    and submit papers that meet all requirements.
  • I will get help before the paper is due rather
    than after.
  • I wont beg for a score if I get a zero, but
    instead will learn from my mistakes and do better
    next time.
  • I wont harass Steve/my TA about these rules,
    because I have full knowledge of them ahead of
    time, and I am voluntarily remaining in the class
    anyways.
About PowerShow.com