LISTENING for ACADEMIC PURPOSES

Task 15.Go to the following sites and perform the exercises

http://www.uefap.com/listen/exercise/astron/astrfrmp.htm

http://www.uefap.com/listen/exercise/enviro/envifrmp.htm

http://www.uefap.com/listen/exercise/education/edufrmp.htm

RECOGNISING LECTURE STRUCTURE

Introducing

At the beginning of a lecture, or a section of a lecture, the lecturer will give you some idea about the structure of the lecture. Listen for these signals as it will help you understand what the lecturer is saying.

What I intend to say is

What I'd like to do is to discuss

What I intend to do is to explain

In my talk today,

My topic today is

Today, I'm going to talk about

I'm going to talk to you about

My colleagues and I are going to give a short presentation on

Today I want to consider

In this talk, I would like to concentrate on

The subject of this talk is

The purpose of this talk is to

This talk is designed to

The lecturer will then often be explicit about the order in which the points will be mentioned. To make the order clear we use various links and connectives

Task 16. (out-class) Listen to the lecture “What is language” and fill in all the gaps.

http://www.uefap.com/listen/exercise/whatlan/whlaframp.htm

Key-vocabulary to Unit 4

Vocabulary sheet (to be filled with useful words and expressions of the Unit)

UNIT 5

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Objectives:

Here in this unit you will:

1. Discuss more ideas about scientific ethics connected with doing research

2. Practise in recognizing and applying the writing fundamentals ()

3. Get more exercises to develop reading skills for academic study together with taking notes

4. Write an abstract

5. Review rhetorical functions in academic speaking

4. Take lecture notes

Part 1

Task 1. A.Say to your partners how you understand fabrication, falsification and plagiarism in science.

B. Skim the text and find the answers to the first question.

Some research behaviors are so at odds with the core principles of science that they are treated very harshly by the scientific community and by institutions that oversee research. Anyone who engages in these behaviors is putting his or her scientific career at risk and is threatening the overall reputation of science and the health and welfare of the intended beneficiaries of research.

Collectively these actions have come to be known as scientific misconduct. A statement developed by the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, which has been adopted by most research-funding agencies, defines misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” According to the statement, the three elements of misconduct are defined as follows:

• Fabrication is “making up data or results.”

• Falsification is “manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.”

• Plagiarism is “the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.”

In addition, the federal statement says that to be considered research misconduct, actions must represent a “significant departure from accepted practices,” must have been “committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly,” and must be “proven by a preponderance of evidence.” According to the statement, “research misconduct does not include differences of opinion.”

Some research institutions and research-funding agencies define scientific research misconduct more broadly. These institutional definitions may add, for example, abuse of confidentiality in peer review, failure to allocate credit appropriately in scientific publications, not observing regulations governing research, failure to report misconduct, or retaliation against individuals who report misconduct to the list of behaviors that are considered misconduct. In addition, the National Science Foundation has retained a clause in its misconduct policies that includes behaviors that seriously deviate from commonly accepted research practices as possible misconduct.

A crucial distinction between falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (sometimes called FFP) and error or negligence is the intent to deceive. When researchers intentionally deceive their colleagues by falsifying information, fabricating research results, or using others’ words and ideas without giving credit, they are violating fundamental research standards and basic societal values. These actions are seen as the worst violations of scientific standards because they undermine the trust on which science is based.

However, intent can be difficult to establish. For example, because trust in science depends so heavily on the assumption that the origin and content of scientific ideas will be treated with respect, plagiarism

is taken very seriously in science, even though it does not introduce spurious results into research records in the same way that fabrication and falsification do. But someone who plagiarizes may insist it was a mistake, either in note taking or in writing, and that there was no intent to deceive. Similarly, someone accused of falsification may contend that errors resulted from honest mistakes or negligence.

Within the scientific community, the effects of misconduct—in terms of lost time, damaged reputations, and feelings of personal betrayal—can be devastating. Individuals, institutions, and even entire research fields can suffer grievous setbacks from instances of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Acts of misconduct also can draw the attention of the media, policymakers, and the general public, with negative consequences for all of science and, ultimately, for the public at large.

(From On Being a Scientist: Third Edition http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192.html)

Task 2. a)Formulate the thesis sentence of the text.

b) Write down the topic sentences

c) Have you ever met with the ideas described?

Task 3. Study the first case.