Wednesday, 22 January 2014

(22/1/14) Online ranting equals to big trouble Ming Chuan and Christopher

1. Question at Issue
(a) Ranting online may very well get people in trouble

(b) People think they are anonymous when ranting online, and tend to post much more hurtful comments.

2. Purpose
(a) To report on such individuals who rant online

(b) To inform these individuals who rant online that they can be tracked

(c) To stop this behavior as soon as possible

3. Evidence/Data
(a) The author uses various sources. One such source is "Choo, who holds a master's degree in developmental psychology, said these ranters fail to realize that bosses, colleagues, business partners, head hunters, potential employers and even the authorities can view their virtual personas as a reflection of their true self (in the real world)." and "There's a false sense of protection and anonymity when users go behind platforms like Twitter and Facebook to complain, grumble, nitpick and criticize, said Dr Adrian Budiman, a senior lecturer at the School of Multimedia Technology and Communications at Universiti Utara Malaysia."


4. Assumptions
(a) The difference now is that it has become increasingly visible as society becomes more connected.

(b) He thinks that his readers might engage in activities similar to what he is writing about, or that his readers have witnessed such activities themselves, and wanted to find out why those people were behaving the way that they did.

5. POV
(a) The author's point of view is presented

(b)He represents people who used to rant online, or people who are trying to prevent people from ranting online.

6. Concepts
(a) Concepts presented include the people who are ranting online thinking that no one can track them.


7. Implications
(a)Ranting online can cause hurt to those you rant against. You might also be despised upon by others, due to your constant pointless rants. Since your comments can be traced, excessively vulgar and/or personal attacks against someone can be tracked down to you, and you might even get into trouble with the law. If we do not refrain from making offensive comments, we will one day have to learn the hard way that we should not rant online.




Tuesday, 21 January 2014

Ranting Online/ Paul's Wheel of Reasonign: Jason, Samuel & Wei Feng

Question At Issue: Ranting online. People think they are anonymous

Purpose: Report. To discourage people from ranting. To show the negative effects of ranting on social media.

Evidence & Data: He quotes information from various sources. "There's a false sense of protection and anonymity when users go behind platforms like Twitter and Facebook to complain, grumble, nitpick and criticise, said Dr Adrian Budiman, a senior lecturer at the School of Multimedia Technology and Communications at Universiti Utara Malaysia."

Assumptions: "People are generally more expressive and in some cases more honest when they don't need to assume socially acceptable roles and when they can hide behind anonymity."

POV: Author's. Interest Group: People Active in Social Media

Concepts: That Ranting online can have detrimental consequences if not done properly

Implications: Tainted Reputation of Businesses, People, Organizations, etc. It might also backfire on the person ranting online.


Inferences: It can be inferred that the report is serious impartial and unbiased tone while writing this article as it showed the good and bad points about ranting online.

Ler How-Jonah

Purpose:
What is the text type: Expository Report
What do you think is the purpose of the article: The purpose of the article is to discuss about online ranting and wether is should be allowed
Why did the writer write this: To express his/her views on ranting

Evidence/Date:
What evidence does the writer use to support his point? Does he quote sources: He uses real life examples and interviewed experts, quoting them.

Assumptions:
What are the writer's assumptions on the issue: The writer assumes that people who go online now are no longer able to be anonymous
What are the writer's assumptions of his readers: He assumes that his readers all use social media

Point of View: Whose point of view is presented: The author's point of view
Which interest group does the writer represent: He represents the Straits Times

Main Issue: Ranting in cyberspace has become more common over the years
Secondary Issue: Remaining anonymous online may not be possible soon

Inferences: The writer suggests that ranting online can be dangerous and have consequences, due to its unfriendly and hostile attitude towards whoever the rant is targeted at. This can be inferred from the examples listed by the author that ranters are being judged and prosecuted for their supposedly deemed indecent or offensive social media posts.

Implications and Consequences: The ranter may be hated and receive hateful messages from people in the cyberspace, and family and friends in real life may change their opinion of the person, and the ranter may lose his job.

Concepts: Ranting should be a minor offense against the law, especially if the rant is indecent or is harmful.

(22/1/14) ONLINE RANTING EQUALS BIG

Jedidiah Cheng & Kai Ferng 

1. Question at Issue 
a) Ranting online can get one into big trouble. 
b) People think that they're anonymous, thus they can rant without restrains. 

2. Purpose
a) Report 
b) To inform readers that ranters who think they're anonymous online can still be traced back.
c) He wants to prove

3. Evidence/ Data
a) He uses information from various sources. For example, "Choo, who holds a master's degree in developmental psychology, said these ranters fail to realise that bosses, colleagues, business partners, head hunters, potential employers and even the authorities can view their virtual personas as a reflection of their true self (in the real world)." and "There's a false sense of protection and anonymity when users go behind platforms like Twitter and Facebook to complain, grumble, nitpick and criticise, said Dr Adrian Budiman, a senior lecturer at the School of Multimedia Technology and Communications at Universiti Utara Malaysia."

4. Assumptions
a) He assumes that people are generally more expressive and more honest when they think they are anonymous and the show of anger online has become increasingly visible as society becomes more connected.

b) He thinks that readers may engage in posting hurtful comments online and think their comments cannot be traced.

5. P.O.V 
a) The author's point of view
b) He represents people are very active in social media.

6. Concepts 
a) One such concept is that ranters online don't think that their others around them will think that actions of social media will relate back to them.

7. Implications
a) If your offensive comment can be traced, one might get into trouble with bosses, colleagues, business partners, head hunters, potential employers and even the authorities.

8. Inferences
a) The writers speaks about ranting online in a very serious, impartial tone.

(22/1/14) ONLINE RANTING EQUALS TO BIG TROUBLE

Reuben Ang(1) and Joshua Tan(20)

- 1. a) Ranting online get netizens into trouble
      b) Netizens have a false impression that they maintain an anonymous identity
- 2. a) Expository
      b) It is to discourage people to rant online
      c) He feels that this is a major problem with the current netizens
- 3. a) He uses various sources. For example, a founder of a founder of a social media firm.
- 4. a) Netizens who rant maintain an anonymous identity
      b) He is assuming that people are following examples stated in the article
-5. a) The author
     b) People who are very active in social media
-6. a) Netizens think that they bad they do inline cannot be detected by anybody
-7. a) When you rant online, you might be hurting somebody without knowing. If your offensive comment can be traced, you might be ruining your chance of getting a job. If we do not refrain fomr making offensive comments, we might affect the society.
-8. a) Be wary of what you write on the internet.
     b) Serious and impartial

(22/1/14) Online Ranting Equals to BIG TROUBLE (Trevor and Jun Kai)

1. Question at Issue
a) Anyone can see whatever you do online because the Internet is now available to almost everyone and they can see your personal information like phone number, house address, email, etc.
b) The secondary issue is that people think that they are anonymous online and can post whatever they want, no matter how offensive it is, without anyone eve finding out it is them who posted it. Other secondary issues are losing your job, being sued, being hated and retain a record just because you ranted too much using social media platforms like Facebook. An example of this is Amy Chong who ranted about a Malay Wedding in her HDB flat void deck on Facebook. This incident resulted with her losing her job and creating a bad reputation for herself.

2. Purpose
a) It is a report.
b) To spread the dangers of ranting on social media platforms and the consequences of it as well as the possibility of someone monitoring your every action online.
c) It is to alert others that the virtual world can be dangerous and the consequences can drag on to the real world just because of your actions online.

3. Evidence/Data
a) He quotes information from various sources. An example is that he quoted "The show of indignation on social media, said Dr Faizal Kasmani, deputy director of Strategic Communications Centre, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, is also encouraged by the support from the circle of friends in the network." Another example is "Take for instance the recent incident where a local well-established hair salon was put in a bad light when a customer went on a tirade on Facebook about her bad experience following a visit to one of its outlets."

4. Assumptions
a) One of the assumptions he made was "The difference now is that it has become increasingly visible as society becomes more connected."
b) The writer assumes that the readers may engage in posting harmful comments online or think that their harmful comments can't be traced or go unnoticed.

5. Point of View
a) The authors point of view is presented.
b) He represents the people who are very active in social media and those who actively comments and likes pages and posts on social media platforms.

6. Concepts
a) A concept that is present in the article is that posts and comments are becoming more and more visible to the society as more people are getting connected everyday.

7. Implications/Consequences of Ranting Online
a) If your offensive posts or comments are being traced, you may face consequences such as losing your job, giving a bad reputation to yourself, being sued, or even jail.

8. Inferences
a) Be wary of whatever you do online
b) I can infer that the tone and attitude of the writer is impartial and serious as he is informing the general public about a serious matter and cannot be biased to one side.

(22/1/14) Online Ranting Equals to Big Trouble (Zhong Han and Ryan)

1. Question at Issue
a) The main issue is that people often 'rant' online, and post inflammatory remarks or comment, or criticise others in the cyber-world.
b) Some people think that because they are anonymous, they can freely express their thoughts and post whatever they want. They think they are doing it in anonymity and hide behind personas, even though it is increasingly less safe, at it is easier to track them.

2. Purpose
a) It is a report about ranting in the digital world.
b) The purpose is to alert users that ranting online can be traced, and to discourage ranting. Secondly, we have to restrain ourselves to make hurtful comments, even if we are 'anonymous'.
Thirdly, it is explaining the thought process behind ranting.
c) The writer wanted to alert people not to make hurtful comments, and not to rant.

3. Evidence/Data
There are multiple sources quoted in the article. These are interviews with people with knowledge or authority. For example, the author quoted an interview with Choo Mei Sze, founder of a social media marketing firm, about the topic of the nature of ranters.
Another example is Dr Faizal Kasmani, deputy director of Strategic Communications Centre, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, who talks about how ranters justify their actions.

4. Assumptions
a) The writer assumes several facts, such as "People are generally more expressive and in some cases more honest when they don't need to assume socially acceptable roles and when they can hide behind their anonymity." The writer assumes this fact, as there is no evidence provided.

b) The writer also assumes that the readers were not aware of the consequences of ranting, and possibly even take part in it.

5. POV
a) The author's point of view.

b) The interest group this is represented by is the bystanders of online rage and arguments. These people rarely partake in arguments online, but are still actively watching

6. Concepts
a) Some concepts and abstract ideas in this article are that ranting online is a norm, and people are used to others complaining and venting frustration online.

7. Implications/Consequences
a) Some implications of ranting online are rantings which are quite harsh, tactless and offensive. This will attract attention, some bad, some good, and may also effect the ranter's current job or future job interviews.

8. Inferences
a) From this article, I can infer that this problem is a very large one, and can cause many problems in the future if not solved not. This also tells me that ranting online is has bad consequences, and can ruin your future.

b) From this, I can infer that the writer is serious about this message, and that the writer is accusatory towards ranters. He is also very thoughtful, and is analyzing the problem carefully.

(22/1/14) Online Ranting Equals to Big Trouble

Question at Issue:

Many people on the internet are ranters and trolls who post remarks and comments about virtually anything that they encounter. Most of them are very harsh, tactless and offensive, with very few being harmless and unnoticed. This due to the illusion of anonymity that the Internet gives.

Purpose:

A report about people who rant online and how it has come so far with such a connected society. It is also to inform people that anonymity is short-lived, and they can be found out and traced. Thus people should be more tactful of what they are writing.

Evidence/Data:

'Take for instance the recent incident where a local well-established hair salon was put in a bad light when a customer went on a tirade on Facebook about her bad experience following a visit to one of its outlets.

Her Facebook page to boycott the salon drew more attention when the owners responded to the allegations.

Ranting on social media seems to be a norm these days and, to a certain extent, an accepted culture among netizens, said Choo Mei Sze, the founder of a social media marketing firm.'

Assumptions:

People are much more expressive online when they are not holding up socially acceptable models and when they are covered by anonymity. The author is also assuming that his audience are people of the Internet and social media, and have come across or are ranters and this post will then inform people of the reasons not to rant online.

P.O.V:

The writer is writing from a view that show he is warning readers to be wary of ranters and trolls while telling us to refrain from following such actions.

Concepts:

The fact that the Internet is very wide and society is much more connected, thus messages of resentment can get across fast.

Implications:

If your offensive comments can be traced people will see the impression of you online and automatically assume your behavior and character in reality.

By: Markus and Jun Peng (Ranting about ranting)

Monday, 13 January 2014

Sunny Graphic organiser


Paul


Statistics
-40% of men were more likely to develop cancer when they drank a can of soda per day
-No nutritional values

Example
-High doses of chemicals, which can also be found in rat poison, found in the soda
-There are a high probability that soda can cause prostate cancer

Facts
-Chances of getting cancer increases
-Higher chance of getting obese. This can cause diabetes.
-Has no nutritional value at all
-Increases the speed of which you age because of some chemicals found in soda

Testimonials
-Obesity is a major problem in many different countries, especially the United States.

Trevor Tan and Ong Jun Kai (Expository Writing: Soda Causes Cancer)



Markus and Jun Peng Graphic Organiser


Expository Writing (14 Jan) Links

Hi gentlemen,

You will need to use the following links in today's lesson.

1. http://goo.gl/Fz9GIv

2. https://sites.google.com/a/s2012.sst.edu.sg/english/s3-05

Cheers,

Miss Esha

Christopher and Ming Chuan


Low Kai Ferng & Pang Cheng Feng



Christopher and Ming Chuan Poster


Le Hao and Jonah


Saturday, 11 January 2014

Ryan and Zhong Han (Mindmap and Poster)



Soda Causes Cancer - Jason, Samuel, Wei Feng

Claim: Soda causes cancer

Supporting Details:

Fact

Statistic

Example

Testimony

Supporting details from the video:

- Minnesota School of Public Health: A study has shown a can of soda a day can increase the risk of cancer for men by 40 percent. (Statistic)

- Soda can cause obesity which can cause prostate & pancreatic cancer (Fact)

- Soda can also have an increased risk depression (Fact)

- A Centre for Science and the Public Interest removed an animal carcinogen which is known to cause cancer quickly as soon they had to declare it on the can due to a California law (Testimony)

Supporting details from the internet:

- A University of Minnesota study showed that drinking sugary drinks may raise one's risk of getting endometrial cancer. (Testimony)

-Doctors say that drinking 2 or more diet sodas per day increases one's chance of being obese by 57% (Statistic)

- Women who drank the most sweet soft drinks had a 78 percent increased risk of the cancer, researchers found. (Statistic)

- ''People who drank two or more soft drinks a week had an 87% increased risk -- or nearly twice the risk -- of pancreatic cancer compared to individuals consuming no soft drinks," says study lead author Noel T. Mueller, MPH, a research associate at the Cancer Control Program at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C. (Statistic)

- A chemical, 4-MI, was found in unsafe levels in Coca-cola, Pepsi-cola, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc's Dr. Pepper and Whole Foods' 365 Cola. (Fact)

- 4-MI, or 4-MEI, was listed by the state of California as a carcinogen in 2011 (Fact)

- In 2007, the National Toxicity Program exposed rats and mice to high doses of 4-MEI, and found that exposure to 4-MEI was linked to lung tumours in mice. (Fact)

Counter-attacking views:

- But the amount of 4-MEI present in sodas via caramel colouring is far less than what was fed to the rodents. A spokesperson added that it was important to note a consumer would have to drink more than a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the level administered to rats that developed cancer in the studies.

- However, the FDA has not listed the chemical as a known human carcinogen. The American beverage Association also slammed CSPI's findings. It said in a statement, "This is nothing more than CSPI scare tactics, and their claims are outrageous. The science simply does not show that 4-MEI in foods or beverages is a threat to human health."

- Coca-Cola Co. told CBS News that the CSPI claims were "erroneous allegations," pointing out that besides the California board mentioned in the study, no other regulatory agency that deals with public health has stated that 4-MI can cause cancer in humans. "The caramel color in all of our ingredients has been, is and always will be safe. That is a fact," Ben Sheidler with the Coca-Cola Co. public affairs and communications office told CBS News by email. Also, The other agencies may not have researched on the chemical and therefore not stated it as cancer causing.

(The chemical accumulates over time in the body.
Their studies show that people who drink soda have a higher chance of getting cancer

The other agencies may not have researched on the chemical and therefore not stated it as cancer causing)

Poster:


Sunny

Claim: Soda causes cancer

Supporting Claim

Statistics:
- 40% of men in tests are known to have risks in cancer

Testimony:
- Sodas like Pepsi are more dangerous than cocaine, which is contributed to by the fact that sodas are more easily accessible than cocaine to the majority of the people

Examples:
- The types or cancer that are known to be caused by soda are esophageal cancer , pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer
- The caramel coloring is made up of melted carbohydrates and sugar

Facts:
- Drinking soda heavily contributes to obesity, which in turn, plays a major role in cancer
- The caramel coloring in the soda is known to be a known animal carcinogen
- Caramel coloring is a colloid


- Other foods that are consumed also contain such traces that are found in soda
- There might me other things that contribute to cancer, such as drug abuse
- We might be completely sure about the results unless proven true with humans


- Soda has been found to contain a majority of these chemicals that cause cancer
- Tests conducted has results that show that soda is responsible for cancer
- Soda still does more harm than good to the human body

Thursday, 9 January 2014

RyanGoh & Zhong Han; Points of Disadvantages of SODA.

Claim:
Soda causes CANCER. 





Colors
   _
   | |
   | |
  \  /
   \/
Fact
Statistic
Example
Testimony


Supporting Details from the Video:
-Drinking soda increases the chance of cancer
-Soda has animal carcinogen for coloring, which was present for many years in the past.
-Soda is more approachable and gettable, and all humans have access to soda.
-Soda has no nutritional value.

-Soda heightens the cause of cancer, 40% higher. Prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer are a few of them that soda causes.

-Drinking soda leads to obesity, which leads to cancer
-Strong relationship between Soda and Prostate cancer



Supporting Details from the INTERNET:
-Consumer watchdog found Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Dr. Pepper all have unsafe levels of 4-methylimifazole, causing about 15,000 cancers among the U.S. population

-The quantity of lethal material is four times over the amount dictated by California's Office of Environmental Health.












Christopher & Ming Chuan

Claim : soda causes cancer


Supporting evidence :
- Studies show that there is a possible link to soda causing cancer (fact)
- Soda is more dangerous than cocaine because it is everywhere. (fact)
- A soda a day increases the chance of getting cancer by 40%.(statistic)
Centre for Science in the Public Interest found that a caramel colouring in some soda drinks was actually a known animal carcinogen which could cause cancer  (fact)
- Soda promotes diabetes. (fact)
- High doses of chemicals, commonly found in soda, caused lung tumours in mice (fact) (example)
Consumption also led to an 11 percent increase in cholesterol, compared with the people who drank other beverages such as water or milk. (statistics)

Jedidiah, Tzun Kai and Zhi En

Claim: Soda causes cancer

Supporting claim:

Fact:
-Caramel colouring causes cancer ( fact )

-Soda causes obesity which causes cancer ( Fact ) 
-Increased levels of Estrogens and insulin are established risk factors for endometrial cancer. (fact)
-In research published in 2007, the National Toxicity Program exposed rats and mice to—and this is key—high doses of 4-MEI and 2-MEI. They found that exposure to 4-MEI was linked to lung tumors in mice; 2-MEI was linked to developing thyroid gland and liver tumors. ( fact )

Statistics:
-London University conducted a study followed thousands of men ten to fifteen years and they found 40% of them were more likely to develop cancer. ( statistics )
-A can of soda day can increase the risk of men developing cancer by 40% ( statistics ) 
-Women who drank the most sweet soft drinks had a 78% percent increased risk of cancer. ( statistics ) 
-The CSPI tested Coke , Pepsi , and Dr pepper products for 4-MEI and found that Coke and Pepsi contained up to 5 times the amount  the chemical deemed safe by the california government  ( statistics )

Examples:
-nothing-

Testimony:
-nothing-

Counterattacking views:
NO COUNTER ATTACK VIEWS ACCORDING TO ZHI EN 

Reuben and Joshua

Claim : soda causes cancer

Supporting evidence :
- Scientific studies show possible link between increased intake of soda to cancer (Fact)
- A study in London University showed that 40% of men (who drank soda regularly) were more likely to develop prostate cancer over a period of 10-15 years (Statistic)
- Several studies found links between soda consumption and pancreatic, oesophagus, and prostate cancer (Fact)
- Consumption leads to diabetes and obesity, which leads to several types of cancer (Fact)
- Centre for Science in the Public Interest found that a caramel colouring in some soda drinks was actually a known animal carcinogen which could cause cancer  (Fact)
- High doses of chemicals, commonly found in soda, caused lung tumours in mice (Fact) (Example)
- An animal study conducted by the Centre for Environmental Health showed evidence of thyroid, liver, and lung cancer incidents (Fact) (Example)
- Artificial sweeteners have been linked to cancer (Fact)

- Many other foods that are being consumed may also contain these cancer causing chemicals and point the blame to soda
- Other factors may play a part in causing cancer in people, such as smoking
- There has not been a thorough test conducted on soda's on humans
- Results from animal testing may not be true for humans
- There has not been a long term and reliable test conducted on the effects of soda

- A large amount of these chemicals are still found in soda
- Soda does not have any health benefits
- All the tests that have been conducted so far have pointed toward soda causing cancer
- Animal testing is used to simulate the human body, and have similar results while testing other drugs


Markus and Jun Peng

Claim:
Soda increases chances of health-related problems.

Supporting details:

Facts:
-Increases chances of cancer
-Higher rate of obesity
-Promotes diabetes
-Soda is within reach of everyone thus it is an approachable and accessible drug
-Soda has 0 nutritional value
-Soda has a major role to play in obesity
-Drinking non-diet soda leads to dramatic increases in fat buildup around your liver and your skeletal muscles, both of which can contribute to insulin resistance and diabetes
-Soda increases rate of aging due to phosphate found in the soda
-According to a 2008 University of Minnesota study of almost 10,000 adults, even just one diet soda a day is linked to a 34% higher risk of metabolic syndrome
-The water used in soda is just simple tap water and can contain chemicals like chlorine, fluoride and traces of heavy metals

Statistics:
-Possible link between consumption of soda and an increased risk of depression
-40% of men were more likely to develop cancer with a can of soda a day
-The study revealed that people who drank a regular soda every day for six months saw a 132 to 142 percent increase in liver fat, a 117 to 221 percent jump in skeletal fat, 30 percent increase in both triglyceride blood fats and other organ fat
-Consumption also led to an 11 percent increase in cholesterol, compared with the people who drank other beverages such as water or milk. 

Examples:
-Relationship between soda consumption risk for prostate cancer

Testimony:


Opposing Views:
-Soda helps in dissolving the indigestible material that builds up in our stomachs over time

Counterattacking Statement:
Soda has more harm then benifit to the human body

Tuesday, 7 January 2014

A Recap of Expositions

Hi ladies and gentlemen,

For today's lesson:

1. Watch 5 min 30 sec of the following YouTube Video.


Here's the link, just in case the video does not work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I6iDuUutho

2. Answer the following questions (in groups of 3) in a blog post.

a. What is this news report claiming / trying to prove?

b. Write all the information that this news report has highlighted to support its claim. Write in point form.


3. Given below are the various categories under which all the information from Qn 2 b may be classified.

a. Statistic
b. Fact
c. Example
d. Testimony

Edit your group's blog post by adding a suitable category (in brackets) for each piece of information you have listed.

E.g. Information you have listed (Statistic)
OR
       Information you have listed (Testimony)


4. Organize the content of your group's blog post using a suitable online graphic organizer. You will find some examples of graphic organizers at this link. 

Warning: 
1. Not all these examples are suitable for this task.
2. These examples are pdf copies and you might not be able to edit them on your computer. So, find similar graphic organizers online that you can edit.

Once done, airdrop the graphic organizer to your teacher's Macbook and also upload it as another blog post for this lesson.


5. Do an internet research to find more supporting details for the claim the above news report has made. Add these supporting details to your graphic organizer.

Note:
1. Supporting details from the video must be in red.
2. Supporting details from your internet research must be in blue.


6. Now that you have nicely organized all the information in support of the claim the news report is making, it is time to find out if there are any opposing views out there. Scout the internet to find any such opposing views. List these (in bold and underlined) in your group's initial blog post.


7. Now, imagine you agree with what the news report is claiming. Write what you can say to counter each of the opposing views you have listed in your group's initial blog post. Write each counterattacking statement in italics and below the opposing view.

E.g.
Opposing view (in bold and underlined)
Your counterattacking statement (in italics)

Note:
Considering opposing views in an argument serves two purposes:
i) It shows you are not ignorant of other possibilities.
ii) It creates an opportunity to destroy any other side of the argument by specifically counterattacking their merits.


8. Group Learning Artifact

a. Create a campaign poster on Glogster in support of the news report you have watched.

b. Your poster should have the following elements:

1. Name of your campaign
2. Slogans for your campaign
3. Details of your campaign (what you are campaigning for, information for people to believe in what you are saying)
4. Reasons why skeptics (those holding opposing views) are wrong
5. Impactful images in support of your campaign
6. Suitable colour scheme and graphics for visual appeal

c. Upload your group's poster to the EL blog as a fresh post.


9. Gallery walk and peer feedback on campaign posters (if time permits).


Cheers,
Miss Esha