Post 4: Carbon Dioxide Paper Evaluation
1. Post your group's presentation.
2. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the criteria established. Where these good criteria, or should there have been different criteria established?
The criteria established had both strengths and weaknesses. A strength was that the criteria had two categories that were board enough that basically everything we were judging the paper on fit into. This was also a weakness the categories could have been broken down more which would have made it easier to determine scoring of the paper. Overall these criteria were good they could have been broken up a bit, but overall they served their purpose.
3. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the presentations as a whole. Consider the "yes" and "no" groups as a whole.
The presentations overall had some strengths and weaknesses that influenced the effectiveness of their persuasive nature. One strength I noticed was that the presentations had two presenters on average. This made the presentation seem less confusing and more organized, you could focus on what the person is saying rather than the lineup of speakers going back and forth. I also found it a strength that everyone seemed to stick to the topic at hand in their presentation and not much filler information was thrown in to take up time. On the other hand a weakness of the presentation was that some of the presentations were rather short and did not make their presentation the adequate length. This often shows lack of preparation or a weakness in time management. However; even though some presentations were short they still managed to cover the basic idea of the criteria.
4. Reflect on the group management of your group. What went well, what did not?
In my group the overall group management went pretty good, some things went well and other things could have been better. We all worked well as a team and everyone got along good. Our group didn’t have very many arguments about who did what work or how to split up the work. One thing that could have gone better was the initial splitting up of the work and getting things going; as they were a little slow at first.
5. Reflect on the personal "ethic" you felt in your group. Did you believe in your position? Where you arguing against your beliefs?
I believed in my position I was trying to sway the others to believe. I’m glad I was on this side of the issue, if I was on the other side that I wasn’t as attached to it would have made the presentation process a little bit rocky.
6. Did the class make the correct decision when considering the broader impacts of the global warming/climate change debate? Why?
The class made the correct decision when considering the broader impacts of the global warming/climate change debate, for several reasons. For one everyone used the same criteria on which to judge the paper. Between the whole class all or most of the facts in the paper and the issues at hand where discussed and debated on.
7. Explain the statement, "What we do in the US, soon will not matter." Provide evidence to justify this statement.
This statement is basically saying that in the future what the US does to improve or ruin the environment soon will not matter because there will be other countries that will have an equal or greater impact on things. To support this, India and China populations are increasing as a rapid rate while the population of the United States is remaining rather steady. (See world clock data) Because of this the other countries will have a greater influence on things over that of the United States.
8. Explain this statement, "What we do as individuals matters." Provide evidence to justify this statement.
This statement is basically saying that what everyone does on an individual level influences what happens in the world. If everyone starts changing what they do soon the world will start changing. This is because individual people are a part of the whole population and everyone is working together.
No comments:
Post a Comment