1) “The continued use of using bullet points will continue the slide of uninformative presentations.” The first problem with this sentence is the double “use.” However, the fallacy would be a hasty generalization. The way it is used in the paper could sort of back up this claim, but I have no real evidence that says this will happen. It is just me inferring it by making connections between two pieces of evidence. To fix this I can either eliminate the sentence completely, or simply change the wording. By saying that this might happen, it would make it more of the connection that I was going for rather then it is definitely going to happen.
2) “However from personal experience, it seems that the two most common methods are visual representation of the information (i.e. chalk board, overhead, or PowerPoint) and the traditional lecture.” While the wording of it doesn’t portray the fallacy, the meaning behind the sentence is the either/or fallacy. I am assuming that these are the only ways of learning, when in fact, there are many more out there I just have not been exposed to them. To fix this I will continue to do research to find other learning methods. If I cannot find any then I will just change the wording to incorporate that there are many types of learning.
For my poster, I will break down my paper into three parts, and present each part on a different section of the poster. On one section I will present the overall problem, thesis, and the studies on PowerPoint’s effectiveness I presented at the beginning of the paper. I will present the results of the studies in some form of graph. I presume that of the three sections this will have the most words, because I will use them to help the audience understand the overall concept of my paper. The second section I will present the problems with PowerPoint and what causes it’s ineffectiveness. This should be easy to present through visuals. In the final section, I think it would be cool to present some of the “solutions” I came up with. Again, this should be easy to present visually. This way the audience can see what the “problems” look like, and then what a better presentation and how to delivery it should look like.
Putting together the presentation, it made me realize that there really is enough information to fill a 12 page paper about my narrowed down specific topic of PowerPoints use in education. At first I was sceptical, but now I think that there is more then enough information out there. Also, the questions after my presentation just really helped reinforce what I was going to say in my paper, and how I was going to stand apart from what “they say.” Overall, the presentation really helped me get more focused in on what I really am going to say in the paper.
Burke, Lisa A., Karen James, and Mohammad Ahmadi. “Effectiveness of PowerPoint-Based Lectures Across Different Business Disciplines: An Investigation and Implications.” Journal of Education for Business 84.4 (2009): 246-251. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.
Harden, R M. “Death by PowerPoint – the need for a ‘fidget index’.” Medical Teacher 30.9-10 (2008): 833-835. MEDLINE with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
Hogan, C.. “Preventing death by PowerPoint. ” Training & Management Development Methods 23.1 (2009): 301-309. ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.
Maxwell, Alexander. “Ban the Bullet-Point! Content-Based PowerPoint for Historians.” History Teacher 41.1 (2007): 39-54. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.
Vallance, Michael, and Phillip A. Towndrow. “Towards the ‘informed use’ of information and communication technology in education: a response to Adams’ ‘PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture’.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 39.2 (2007): 219-227. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.
Of the five sources, I think the most useful will be the 4th source, “Ban the Bullet-Pont! Content-Based PowerPoint for Historians.” This seems to be the most useful because in the abstract it talks about how to make presentations better, the author is being proactive instead of just criticizing. This makes me think that although he has his opinions on the subject, he can see both sides, and might present both within the article.
What I think Stallybrass is saying in “you are not, nor should you be, the origin of your own thoughts,” is that all of your life experiences and everything you have heard in the news or books shape the way you think and alter you thoughts. When a mother tells their child that wathcing to much tv is going to make them lazy and fat isn’t really her idea. Most likely she has heard about studies that show how consistatly watching televison makes a person lazy. This is relevant to our paper because we really are not making a point of our own, but rather are taking claims and evidence of others to back and support the argument that we are trying to make. Also, it is bad to take ideas and evidence that you know someone else has made, and call it your own, which is plagerism.
I am interested in researching the usefulness of bike lanes. I want to research this because I want to find out if they are actually safer for bicyclists. This is important because if they are not safer, then we should stop promoting them as much as we do.
How did bicycle lanes start? Who came up with the idea? When did they start?
Was the original intent for safety?
Are there any main organizations for or against bike lanes?
When it comes to making exhibits about historical events, people, places, objects, etc. it is really hard to present an “official story” because everyone has a different view or opinion on what happened. This is the case with the Enola Gay, and the exhibit that the National Air and Space Museum planned in the mid 1990’s. When looking at the time line and the American Historical Association article, it can see that the museum didn’t even really try to present a basic overview of the entire story. Instead they only presented the information they wanted to present. The museum even went as far as to distort some of the information and present false facts. Only when many protested and the government stepped in, did they scrape their original idea and present more of an “official story.” So, it must be asked, why can’t even a museum present an “official story?” It is obvious why a company or a person might not present every piece of information, but why can’t a museum? Museum’s are supposed to present the basic facts, but if they don’t even do that, then what is the point of having them? If they only present slanted information, then going to a museum is just as useful as watching Glen Beck.
Target is seen as a very respectible company. On their webiste, they state that Forbes called them one of the top 20 most respected companies in 2009, 96% of people recognize their bullseye logo, and that they give $14.9 million to schools nationwide. However, what Target does not say on their website is that they have come under-fire several times for their actions. Most recently, some LGBT groups are boycotting Target for their funding of gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a Republican with a very conservative view on LGBT rights. This and many other of Target’s decisions are not listed on their website for obvious reasons. Even in their press archives, the listings they have of the event, have very little information and are from a very neutral view. (http://pressroom.target.com/pr/news/7-30-statement.aspx)
In the article “Abolitionists of Western New York, Awake!” in The North Star newspaper, you can tell just how passionate Frederick Douglass is. It is typed, but of an obvious old fashion nature. It was written for a newspaper but could have easily been a speech Douglass gave. The article was written and released to the public in January 1848, and was used as a way to express Douglass’ feelings and passion about slavery to a wider public audience. From reading the article it seems that people are afraid to stand up for what they believe in and that if it continues this way nothing will change. He urges people with great rhetoric to help fight back! The article makes me wonder just how many people believed in the abolitionist movement, but were too afraid to do anything? Also, I feel like writing in a newspaper in 1848 would not have been the most successful way to get your word and opinions out. Thus, it makes me wonder, why a newspaper? Was it a more conspicuous way of not getting caught, or am I just naïve in thinking that few people had access to a newspaper? Overall, this artifact was very interesting. Not only because it seems like it was in a very good condition when it was scanned, considering how long ago it was written, but also because it provides a deeper look into the life of Frederick Douglass.