The first source is a journal article from Science Progress, which goes in depth about the specific definitions and characterizations of Organic Chemistry. It's a good example of secondary research that acts as an academic piece, but with an easier diction considering the scope of the piece. I'm hoping to look into it's more unique structure and heavy use of complicated illustrations, as well address the varying degrees of learned and colloquial language.
The second source is another journal entry from the same magazine. It differs, however, in its research, as it's a article about primary research. The first main point I plan on touching on with this is the unconventional structure that it employs, considering it lacks the normal headings that are used in an APA format. Regardless, it follows the same trends that APA tends to use. Secondly would be the drastically different diction, as it's word choice is much more learned than that in the first source.
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/stable/43418182?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Organic&searchText=Chemistry&searchText=Press&searchText=Releases&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DOrganic%2BChemistry%2BPress%2BReleases%26amp%3Bfilter%3D&refreqid=search%3A89382929c1712ed8ab3710d55fc2abb7&seq=9#page_scan_tab_contents
Thirdly would be the first non-academic article, an educational piece about the dangers and chemistry of arsenic in our soil. It's especially unique because of the structure of the piece follows a more APA style format, but is intended for educational purposes with extensive background and explanation. It does well in building up from more casual language to learned diction as the piece progresses, providing an interesting non-academic source. I'm hoping to find a more conventional source in order to contract the two further.
Comments
Post a Comment