Laboratory Schedule - Summer 2008

Date 

Exercise

Skills Stressed

May 27

Introduction.  

Familiarity & Safety.

May 27

Metacognition.  (1)

Self-analysis & Application of concepts.

May 29

Microscopes.  (2)

Use of Lab Instruments.

June 4

Cells, Tissues, & Organs.  (4)

Connecting subfunctions to overall functions; Recognition of tissue types.

June 5

Disease Organisms.  (5)

Analysis of symptoms from the actions of organisms; prevention and avoidance;  recognition of organism types.

June 9

Genetics.  (6)

 Principles of dominant/recessive crosses;  Applications. Other genetic processes.

June 11

Reproduction.  (7)

Recognition of egg, sperm, and embryo-producing cells.

June 12

Anatomy I (Fetal Pig)  (8)

Recognition of organs and structures;  functions applied to real world situations.

June 16

Anatomy II   (9)

 "

June 18

Epidemiology  (10)
BRING A CALCULATOR!

Applying scientific principles to outbreaks of disease.

June 19

Using the Health Guide  (11)
BRING YOUR BOOKS!

Analysis of symptoms, with follow-up confirmations.

June 23

Ethics  (12)

Applying moral judgments to medical and scientific questions.

June 25

Mental Processing  (13) 

Recognizing patterns to memory and sensory processes.

Overall Format for the SC 137 Research Paper:

• You can have a full separate title page, or use the top half of your first text page for the title.

• The title must be specific enough to get an idea of what's in the paper clearly across to the reader.

• The title must be followed by the chosen topic number in parentheses!!! See the topics list for their numbers.

• Minimum four pages of text, double-spaced (leaves room for notes and corrections) - make a note if your word processor's idea of "double-spaced" looks unusually wide. Margins should not be too wide.

Footnotes.  

• General information or information available from multiple sources does not require footnotes, so don't overdo it. Specific or controversial information, or direct quotes (which also require attribution - tell who's talking, and why they are quotable!), things that you could only have gotten from particular sources, do require footnotes. Format: at the end of the passage, in parentheses, put the last name of the lead author (or whatever the reference is listed under) from your reference (your reference list at the end is alphabetized by author's last name, so a reader can easily find the full reference title if they want to). No other information is needed unless you have more than one reference from that author - then, use year of publication or second author or first words of title to specify which reference you're footnoting. References without authors can be footnoted according to how you listed it at the end.

• NOTE: These papers require a specific science-style reference listing format!!!!!!

• References are listed as follows. The entire list is alphabetized by author's last name. Make notes in your list of information that was not available.

• Paper Sources: In this order: Author(s), last name first, full names, full list; Year (only) of publication; Title of actual reference; reference source if part of bigger whole, like a magazine article or a separately-written book chapter would be; Volume and Issue Numbers for a magazine, Date for a newspaper, or Publisher for a book; Page Numbers if applicable.  If the reference came from a database such as the Library's, put which database you used to find it.

• Internet Sources: Author(s), last names first, full names, full list;  Year of writing or last update;  Title of specific web page accessed;  Web site name if page is part of larger site;  Full Internet address;  Date(s) that you accessed the information.

• Other Sources: Check with Mr. McDarby on formats for unusual references, such as pamphlets or interviews.  Don't make assumptions!

Common mistakes for this topic: People ignore that this is basically a comparison between general and specific sources; they don't really go into media treatment, which should set up the whole paper.

2.) A current human-health-related ethical issue. These are the moral issues that surround decisions about human health. You might find proper subjects in such areas as medicine, research, public policy or the environment. You must find a subject that has at least two sides, and you must present all sides of the issue adequately. You may express your own opinion is you wish, but all sides must be treated fairly despite your personal feelings.

Common mistakes for this topic: People pick a subject they feel too strongly about, so the "other side" is presented very poorly; these papers may be difficult to organize properly - people sometimes just go over and over the same territory.

3.) Health technology. Here you'll address some new developments, in equipment or techniques; describe the technology, give a background of what it's replacing or changing, and make projections of the sorts of changes it might bring about.

Common mistakes for this topic: People miss one of the three main aspects of the topic: describe the technology, give a general idea of how it's to be applied (including current techniques), and project its future effects.

4.) New developments for a particular type of health professional. You need to pick a profession that is or soon will be going through major changes, discuss those changes and what sorts of future impacts those changes will have.

Common mistakes for this topic: People pick a profession that they're too unfamiliar with, and therefore can't find enough information on.

5.) An interview with a health professional. Discuss their background, including education and motivations, their current duties, and their opinions about the system they're a part of. Most importantly, put their particulars into context with general research of their profession.

Common mistakes for this topic: The interview is fairly easy, although some people forget to ask all of the questions the topic requires - it's finding the information to put it into context that's difficult. An example: your interview subject went to a trade school; you need to find out how common that is in that profession.

6.) Review of a health-oriented business. You'll need to find out how the business was set up and how it runs, but you also need to track down information on how such businesses operate in general or on average. Charities or public institutions can be used if they have a health function.

Common mistakes for this topic: Getting all of the information can be difficult, especially the general information about the type of business you're researching.

7.) A detailed individual case-history with full background. A case history would be one person's experience with a disease or condition. You'll need to trace the development, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of the case, but you need to do the research to explain things - why does that symptom appear, or why is that test run, or what is that medication supposed to be doing?

Common mistakes for this topic: Giving the history is fairly simple - it's the research and explanations that people have difficulties with. Virtually every aspect of the case should be explained - it's not enough to just say what happened, you have to say why, so far as anyone knows.

8) The overall history of a disease or health-related topic. You need a subject that not only has a history, but one whose history you can actually track. Give early background and descriptions, discoveries, political / social aspects and impacts, all in a historical framework, including development of responses.

Common mistakes for this topic: Finding such information is almost impossible for some subjects. Although you would think otherwise for something that's essentially a timeline, many people can't seem to organize these papers properly.

9.) Comparison of two books on the same health-related topic. These books should look, to a glance, like they're on the same subject. Your job is to compare them - how are they similar? How are they different? This topic does not require four references - just the two books.

Common mistakes for this topic: People sometimes forget to tell at the beginning of their papers what their books are; they get bogged down just reviewing the books, and give almost no real comparisons. Sometimes its clear that they didn't really understand the books, which makes it hard to compare them!

Topic Number is missing or wrong.

Paper doesn't really address chosen topic, or misses much of the topic's requirements.

Organization of the paper is poor - things are discussed in widely separate sections. NOTE: outline, and don't be afraid to use a word processor to move things around.

Points you've already discussed are repeated.

Overall proofreading was not done and needed to be. (Computer checkers are better than nothing, but will still miss a lot of mistakes.)

Apostrophes are not used on possessives. (Exception: possessive "its" gets no apostrophe; "it's" is a contraction meaning "it is.")

Colons and semicolons are misused. (A colon sets something up, often a list; a semicolon breaks things apart a bit more strongly than a comma.)

Verbs don't refer to their nouns (singular, plural) properly, or change tense for no reason.

Confusion amongst "there/ their/ they're," or "your/ you're," or "two/ to/ too."

Effect and affect are confused. (Effect is almost always a thing, affect is a verb.)

Proper usage is "try to do whatever," not "try and do it," as most people speak.

Paragraph breaks don't make sense. (They come when you make a major subject change - there is no magic sentence count.)

Footnotes are overused, or not used when needed, or done improperly. (See earlier section on footnotes.)

Quotations are overused (you're paraphrasing, mostly, not copying) or are not attributed (Who said this, and why are they quotable?).  At most, maybe 20% of your paper can be quotes.

In quotations, periods and commas are put outside the quotation marks. (Punctuation at the end of quotations go inside the quotation marks unless putting them there would change the meaning of the quotes.)

Style results in confusion or changes for no apparent reason.

Paper isn't long enough. (Text alone has to be at least 4 pages!)

Reference format is wrong, and/or information that's supposed to be there is missing.