Friday, April 26, 2013

The real final assignment...LOL

I was wrong about the last assignment entry being the last one.  I think it safe to say that since this is the last week of the class that this will truly be the last assignment.

Here is the assignment:

Summarize your reactions to the other group projects. How do they compare with what your group has produced? Do they seem to have the same idea of their audience? Do they incorporate the same level of audience choice or control? How do the multimedia aspects compare? Explain.
Did other groups seem to have some good advice for your group? Explain.

Here is a breakdown of the projects


Evenings-English concentrations
Afternoon-RPG game with vulgar language
Weekend Team A-Info tree
Dupuis Robertson-childhood dropouts
Henry and Potampa-children’s literature
Weekend Team B-Using Facebook for school
Wednesday-children’s literacy
Tuesday/Thursday-Multimedia options

Our Evening group produced a website that focuses on the individual concentrations within the English Department.  It is an interactive website that allows the end user to make choices and navigate the site in their own way.  The Afternoon team created a RPG game that I had trouble with.  It has some vulgarities in it that really don’t seem to be appropriate for the English Department’s website or any University website for that matter.  A game that is to be included on the English Department’s website that included vulgar language, that one team member admittedly said her boyfriend put in the game is insulting to the department and the school in my opinion.  It just sends the wrong message for the college.  Weekend Team A created a presentation that was quaint with its “tree of knowledge” as I call it.  You can go to a different branch and click to get more information about the topics.  Dupuis Robertson did a really nice presentation about children who have dropped out of high school.  I liked that it didn’t just give facts and figures about high school drop outs but that it included short videos about the children individually and included links to a website that can show you how to help the problem.  Henry and Potampa did a wonderful presentation on children’s literature and the way that it has changed over the decades.  I loved the inclusion of the popular book titles for each decade.  I not only remembered the books that my children read as well as some that I read as a child.  Weekend Team B created a presentation about using Facebook and social media for school work, study groups, and other uses.  In today’s age and the social media savvy of students, this is a great tool.  Wednesday’s group also used a tree idea to address literacy in the United States and ways in which to build good “roots” in reading for children.  Finally, the Tuesday/Thursday group created a presentation that shows the alternative multimedia options to use for school presentations other than Power Point.  There were several in this list that I knew nothing about.

I don’t believe that all the groups had the same idea of who the audience would be.  I think Weekend Team B and the Tuesday/Thursday group had the same audience in mind that our team did.  They seemed to be as focused as we were on the serious college student.  I don’t think that the incorporate the same amount of audience choice that our team did.  Our project was a truly interactive site, it required quite a bit of thinking and decision making to move through the website.  I also think that the multimedia incorporated in our project is eye catching and appealing to the user.  I do feel that good advice was given in the many suggestions of changing the name as I didn’t get the “What to expect when you’re expecting….English” either.  

No comments:

Post a Comment