Introduce a scholarly audience to the topic biological warfare.Contribute to scholarly conversations about the question or issueProvide a detailed analysis of the question or issue using data collected through your primary and secondary researchPropose some ways to move the conversation about the question or issue forward.Planning and Drafting of the work for this paper. A significant part of what you’ll be doing now is piecing together your previous work with new writing in such a way that the individual parts form a seamless academic argument. That argument should have the following parts:An engaging Introduction that employs the CARS Model. The introduction should establish a territory by providing pertinent contextualizing information on the topic you have selected (Project 1) as well as a review of the existing literature that introduces the conversation you plan to enter. (Project 3–the Annotated Bibliography– and Project 2–the Primary Research.) The conversation you identify should allow you to establish a niche by showing gaps in our current knowledge of your topic. The introduction should culminate in a focused thesis or claim that addresses the workings of writing and/or rhetoric within your selected community, effectively occupying the niche (Move 3 of CARS). The introduction includes effective use of information from existing scholarship you have identified through your library research. By now, you should have somewhere around 12 or more total sources. While this is not a requirement on which you will be graded, you should be concerned if you have significantly fewer sources than this as it may mean that you do not have enough information to craft a persuasive argument. Your list of sources can include articles we have read in our textbooks plus the relevant sources you located through library research.Description and justification your Methodology. What did you do? Why did you do it? Why did you choose one method of primary research over another? Would a different method have also provided useful data? What are your reasons for not choosing that method? (We’ll work on this in class, too.)Presentation of Results of primary data collected throughout the situated inquiry project.
Detailed Discussion and analysis of key pieces of data that develops and supports the central thesis. This would traditionally be what we consider the “body” of a paper and will contain the argument you are trying to make overall. This analysis should be data-driven, not just a narrative description of your sources; don’t just say what you found out, say why that matters. You should evaluate and analyze the results of your research, looking closely at what the results mean, what we can learn from them, and/or what they don’t show us. Here you should connect to and draw from the sources presented in the Introduction (literature review portion).In your Discussion, you should present your final conclusions and identify opportunities for possible future research An Appendix, which will contain your primary research questions and answers, along with any visuals (screenshots, etc., whatever you used in your primary research).Who Is Your Audience?As always, it will help to think of yourself as joining the conversation about your topic in some way. Your audience, then, consists of scholars who are interested in the workings and functions of your topic, or perhaps are a general audience interested in the subject (or totally uninformed!). In addition to these scholars, your potential audience is the readers of Stylus, UCF’s academic journal of undergraduate scholarship in writing and rhetoric. We’re not just imagining it here, folks. Your work could really appear in Stylus! With this potentially real audience in mind, you’ll need to make sure that you explain your ideas clearly, that you define specialized terms, and that you quote from your primary and secondary research to help illuminate specific points you wish to make.