SemesterSpring Semester, 2018
DepartmentInternational Master's Program in International Communication Studies, First Year International Master's Program in International Communication Studies, Second Year
Course NameVisual Narrative and Science Communication
Instructor
Credit3.0
Course TypeElective
Prerequisite
Course Objective
Course Description
Course Schedule







March 2: Introduction



 



UNIT 1: Images of/in Science I: Illustration



March 9-16 Visual representation of science



Pang, A.S. (1997). Visual representation and post-constructivist history of science. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Science, 28(1), pp. 139-171.




  • March 9: Pang (1997) – first half.

  • March 16: Pang (1997) – second half.



March 23 Picture books




  • Workshop - Interesting alphabet picture books



March 30 Webpage




  • Workshop – Web design



 



UNIT 2: Images of/in Science II: Film



April 4 No class




  • Adjusted holiday



April 13-27 Science documentary




  • April 13: Silverstone, R. (1984). Narrative strategies in television science – a case study, Media, Culture & Society, no. 6, 1984, pp. 377-410.

  • April 20: Case study of BBC science documentary series Horizon

  • April 27: Beattie, Keith (2008). Show and tell: revealing documentary display, in Documentary Display: Re-viewing Nonfiction Film and Video. London & NY: Wallflower Press, pp. 9-31.



 



UNIT 3: The Science of Art: Virtual Realty



May 4-11 Virtual reality




  • May 4: Workshop on AR

  • May 11: Workshop on AR and VR

  • May 18: No class; university anniversary



 



FIANL PAPER WORKSHOPS



June 1 Structured communication




  • Minto (2010). The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking.

  • Students presenting ideas for final paper.



June 8 Visual aids in presentation




  • Workshop: PowerPoint skills



June 15 Peer editing workshop




  • Students bring drafts of their final paper to class.



June 22 No class




  • Time is free for working on final papers.



June 29 Wrap-up discussions




  • Final paper due.



Teaching Methods
Teaching Assistant
Requirement/Grading
Grading Breakdown


Participation: 25%


Three take-home assignments: 45% (15% each)


Final paper (6-8 pages): 30%


 


Participation: This is not a lecture course; our classes will be built around discussions and activities, which means they will only be fun if you share your opinions, ideas, and questions, and get involved. Learning how to express yourself in class is an important skill that will affect your writing. In-class participation – in the discussions, in the presentations, and in the writing activities – will make up 25% of your final grade.


 



Grading Policies for writing assignments



A or A- These papers represent genuinely distinguished, exceptional work, good enough to be read aloud in class. They show intellectual originality and creativity. The writers have a detailed understanding of the material; they place it in context and formulate perceptive compelling, independent arguments, supported by well-chosen evidence. Papers are clearly written, well-organized and proofread to avoid errors. At the end readers have learned something worth knowing.



 



B+ or B These papers have a clear thesis, organization and flow. The writers have obviously put thought into the work. The arguments are reasonable and substantiated by evidence. The results are solid, but lack the originality of voice or thesis of A papers. Some B papers are creative and original but sloppily presented. Writers may have flashes of insight that are not sustained or excellent ideas that are not presented as coherently as they should be. These papers are competent but not compelling.



B- Writers have understood the issues and their context; they have a valid argument, based on research, but their presentations are handicapped by weaknesses in writing, organization or use of evidence.



 



C+, C or C- These are some ideas here, but the writer needs help making them clear to a reader. Papers in this range often summarize existing material without offering new interpretations, or they omit crucial facets of an issue. The main arguments may be banal or unclear. This in turn hinders the effort to marshal evidence or argue convincingly. Papers may suffer from inadequate research, organization or context. Students may use Spell Check but fail to proofread their texts.



 



D/F These papers demonstrate serious deficiencies in a writer’s command of the material; they lack the research or reflection necessary to make a coherent, substantiated argument.


Textbook & Reference

  1.  ang, Alex Soojung-Kim (1997). Visual representation and post-constructivist history of science. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Science, 28(1), pp. 139-171.

  2. Silverstone, Roger (1984). Narrative strategies in television science – a case study, Media, Culture & Society, no. 6, 1984, pp. 377-410.

  3. Beattie, Keith (2008). Show and tell: revealing documentary display, in Documentary Display: Re-viewing Nonfiction Film and Video. London & NY: Wallflower Press, pp. 9-31.

  4. Minto (2010). The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking. Pearson Education Limited. 


Urls about Course
Attachment