Difference between revisions of "Science News Summary Questions"

From EEBedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
BIO 2289 Science News Summary 1
+
BIO 2289 Science News Summary 6
Name_______________________________________________________
+
 
 +
Name____________________________________________________
  
 
News Article Title_______________________________________________
 
News Article Title_______________________________________________
  
  
Did you spend more time, less time, or about the same amount of time to read today’s Science Section as you did last week’s?
+
Approximately how long did it take you to read today’s Science Section?
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
In two sentences or less, identify the questions, or set of questions underlying the research described in the article you named above. If you cannot because they were not clearly defined by the author, say so.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
  
  
Line 12: Line 24:
  
  
 +
What, if any, information in the article allowed you to judge the credibility (expertise) of the scientist(s) quoted in the piece?
  
In two sentences or less, tell me why you picked the article you named above to summarize? (there was again a pretty diverse range of topics in this weeks edition).
 
  
  
Line 22: Line 34:
  
  
In two sentences or less, tell me why the subject of the article you picked was important enough to be reported on in the New York Times. If you have no idea why the reporter thought it was important, say so.
+
Did you learn anything from the article that surprised you? If yes, what?

Latest revision as of 18:13, 15 April 2009

BIO 2289 Science News Summary 6

Name____________________________________________________

News Article Title_______________________________________________


Approximately how long did it take you to read today’s Science Section?




In two sentences or less, identify the questions, or set of questions underlying the research described in the article you named above. If you cannot because they were not clearly defined by the author, say so.





What, if any, information in the article allowed you to judge the credibility (expertise) of the scientist(s) quoted in the piece?





Did you learn anything from the article that surprised you? If yes, what?