Works in Progress

So what is Next for Final Portfolio 12/2

I have written my draft for my English 1101 final portfolio and next I plan to send it out to be reviewed to get feedback on it and I plan on either changing one of my Artifacts to something that better supports my argument or continue with the 3 artifacts I have chosen and beginning their written portions. I will do all of the written components for my Artifact pages and then incorporate the additional pictures of evidence of the project afterwards. I will then have a peer of I mine review everything and I will make final revisions and modifications.


Connecting an Artifact to Learning Outcome 11/28

Blog post (Artifact 1)

Learning Outcome: Rhetoric

Adapt communication to circumstances and audience

In one of my blog post about an article by John Toon that detailed robots I wanted to stress why I did not like how long it was . I wrote “Somehow the fact that the article has a very narrow audience is both a good and bad thing. It being a good thing is because it caters very well to its audience. It uses appropriate language and incorporates the scientific method effectively (since scientist like process). It being negative on the other hand is because it is very difficult for “regular” people to be either interested or understanding of the article.” My language was very informal and conversational because I was rhetorically aware of my audience being my professor, classmates and blog readers who normally expect subjective and relaxed writing. If oppositely my audience instead were robotics professionals I would have used more mature diction, scientific vocabulary and a noticeably formal argument possibly with quotes and in depth analysis of the article.

Revision Exercise 11/2:

What Toad in Todd’s Piece?

ORIGINAL: In my opinion, while curiosity positively breads innovation, discovery and newfound knowledge it is a result of disbelief, uncertainty and distrust with either what something is, how something is or why something is.

REVISED: In my opinion, while curiosity positively breads innovation, discovery and newfound knowledge it is also a result of disbelief, uncertainty and/or distrust with either what something is, how something is or why something is. Much like how Todd quotes George Loewenstien, author of a piece about curiosity, he claims that “The theoretical puzzle posed by curiosity is why people are so strongly attracted to information that, by the definition of curiosity, confers no extrinsic benefit.”. This is evidence that curiosity is nothing more than mere dissatisfaction with what someone knows about something that is mainly insignificant. Curiosity seems to have upsides to some people but from experience I would rather be cautious and careful than curious.

Todd 10/28:

  1. What is her argument?
    1. I think Kim Todd’s argument in her piece “Curious” is that while people have different opinions about the benefits and dangers of curiosity, it is an innate while also fickle craving for odd, trivial knowledge that everything has some form of, although, human curiosity is much unlike animal curiosity.
    2. “Curiosity can be as obsessive as hunger” ; ” it is notoriously fickle, too, slinking away as soon as it is satisfied” ; “When elements previously thought of as incompatible are harnessed together—a juxtaposition—the curiosity grows stronger.”
    3. I interpret the above quotes in relation to my assumption of Todd’s argument as: Curiosity is an characterized feeling,  no one based of of even extensive research is exactly sure what breeds curiosity in humans. Curiosity is impulsive but easily satisfied once whatever odd question or situation that which it was an effect of has been figured out.

Graslie 10/28:

  1. What is her argument?
    1. I think Emily Graslie’s argument is that people are only curious about things that they personally find significant or worth their attention.
    2. “you cannot be curious about something if you do not know this something exist” ; people who visited the museum stopped to see the opal sun god gem but not the carbon extraction from the meteorite
    3. The meteorite’s history was far more interesting that just a face carved out of an opal but because no one knew of it’s significance they did not stop to ask questions about it, they did not care, they were not curious. Curiosity is directly associated with the  fascination  someone associates with whatever.

most recent @ the bottom

Common First Week Video Reflection – August 29, 2016

  1. Describe you process. Which steps did you find most effective? Least?
    For the first week video, I decided I wanted to begin with a draft of bullet points detailing what I was going to discuss in my video. I typed out a list and used the WOVEN textbook for definitions and clarification to make sure I was explaining oral communication correctly. After practicing and rehearsing the bullet points, I set up camera in my room and recorded. Practicing was a good idea because I knew what to say instead of improvising. The detailed bullet points however were not very useful since I did not get to say everything I had planned because of the restraints on time.
  2. What part of your project did you find most effective?
    I found that discussing my personal experience about having to present poetry in front of my 10th grade literature class was most effective. It gave a good illustration of my experience with oral communication while showing how nervousness is very real and challenging. My personal experience with oral communication helped make my video more personal than it would have been otherwise.
  3. If you could redo any part of your project/process, what would you change and why?
    If I could change something about my common first week video, I would change the angle of the camera. After recording and failing several times at trying to raise the camera high enough to not be at a weird angle, I realized the angle it was at made me look very odd. If the camera were higher, my face would have been at a more appropriate position. It is almost as if the camera is looking up and at me and I would have rather it been higher or at least eye level.

    Spinning Science Intro Draft – September 11, 2016

    Advertisements are supposed to capture the audience’s attention to either sell and idea or product. A United Kingdom’s ad campaign launched by the Pancreatic Cancer Action in February of 2014 defiantly understood how to hook people’s feelings and sell them on the misfortunes of a widely minimized disease. The PCA launched a very controversial advertisement to raise awareness of the terribly shocking truths regarding pancreatic cancer. One of the ads, one that will be discussed in this paper, pictures a bald emotionless and sickly woman with a series of noticeable tumors on her head with the headline “I wish I had breast cancer”. The ad then utilizes medical facts about pancreatic survival rates to help stress the severity of the cancer. With the two together –the emotionally striking visual and the undeniable scientific facts– the advertisement effectively captures readers and informs them well about pancreatic cancer.


    Spinning Science Peer Reflection: Akarsh

    • Rhetorical Awareness: MATURE
    • Stance: MATURE
    • Development of Ideas: COMPETENT/MATURE
    • Organization: COMPETENT
    • Conventions: MATURE
    • Design for Medium: COMPETENT
      • Grade – A
    1. After getting my piece reviewed by my peers I realized several changes I could make to my Spinning Science project. I defiantly realized I needed to connect how Science specifically influenced and made the ad more effective. I also needed to pay more attention to conventions, proof reading was very necessary and was obvious that I neglected to read over my piece thoroughly.
    2. Plan for revision: I plan on explaining in more detail the impact of Science on the ad itself. I plan on mentioning the psychological and statistical/medical science that has such a huge presence in the ad and how it helps the reader to better understand the ad and its overall purpose. I plan on proofreading and fixing grammatical errors.

      Differences between two Muddybot articles 9/21:

      1. different authors
      2. different websites
      3. GaTech article is longer
      4. PopScience article has more videos
      5. GaTech article is more thorough
      6. PopScience article is short, with big visuals
      7. PopScience article has wide bulgy font
      8. PopScience’s potential audience is general public
      9. GaTech has a lot more scientific jargon 
      10. GaTech’s potiental audience is people interested in scientific research/Ga Tech Students

        So What? Statement for Our Transforming Science project 9/26:

        • The idea about a fabric that generates electricity changes the way we think about electricity generation and clean/accessible energy. Normally one would imagine sustainable energy as huge solar panels and/or big electricity-powering fans but with a simple fabric, electricity and energy has the potential to be redefined.

        • This argument has real-world consequences in situations such as partnerships between apparel companies and electrical power companies, in such a way that clean power would need not be expensive and centered around solar or wind power “farms”.

        • Our audience should care because this technology makes it easier for them to access electricity. They can charge their gadgets without carrying around chargers and by simply moving around throughout the day.