HELLO🙃
Yesterday we finished our second seminar for this unit, which is about “what makes a good blog post”. The seminar helped me discover some methods to make my blog more engaging and interesting.
I got a 6 and a 7 (again😭🫣) but I did succeed in getting one more “middle” than the previous seminar. However, I failed to achieve my goal of getting 77 or 68 and getting at least one high.
The seminar was relatively short so we only had two or three questions. The discussion started with the question “How do you define an easily identifiable writing style that makes your posts feel unique?”. Then we moved on to “Is an engaging blog post defined by what readers want to read, or by the writer’s true self expression?” The first question did not result in much discussion and we were basically just stating new points. We didn’t make many connections to each other’s blogs or points. Because of this, only one or two highs appeared in the class. However, the second question sparked a very interesting “debate”. Through this, most of us got middles and highs. The final question is based on an Instagram blog post about China. This question also did not generate much valuable discussion, and most of us seemed tired, so we just pointed out random things and talked about how social media works.
Reflecting on my performance in the seminar, I think I did “so-so” and still have a lot of room for improvement. I didn’t prepare enough for the seminar, as I thought we were discussing generally what makes a blog post good. I also found out that the questions did not link to my preparation on comparing the blogs of different classmates. The main problem is I’m not familiar enough with blogs and videos, so when others talked about why the Mona Lisa was created (or other related topics) I couldn’t build on their points. I could only focus on the surface level ideas and the obvious ones, which caused me to get low scores. Then, I did record my ideas on a piece of paper (I mentioned in my previous reflection that I couldn’t remember what I wanted to say), but because I only wrote down my own thoughts and not other people’s ideas, I would forget the link between the two viewpoints and how to effectively respond or rebut. Therefore, next time I should use the debate note-taking format to record the seminar. Basically, you fold a paper in half; on the left, you record what your classmates are saying, and on the right, you write your response and align it with their idea. This is very useful because you can make connections between three or four ideas.
In this seminar, the leaders were much more efficient with managing the discussion. First, I mentioned in my previous reflection that the leaders should call on the quiet ones first for the first question, then move on to the more active students so the quiet members still have something meaningful to say instead of scrambling for empty points. The leaders took this advice, and this time we did not get any “0”s or low scores because quiet students no longer had to think of meaningless content just to contribute. After they finished speaking, we continued the discussion very naturally, and the quiet ones even gave us some ideas to build on (like Vincent’s point that we should maybe use a kindergarten-style voice to write our blog). (so YAY😀) Second, another suggestion from my previous reflection was to let 4 or 5 people respond to a previous point first before moving on to new points. The leaders did a great job in this seminar. For example, Terry gave his opinion that self-expression defines an engaging blog post, using Mr. Beast and the Mona Lisa as examples. He said that Mr. Beast and Da Vinci did not create content based on what readers and viewers want, but focused on “personal expression”. Ian disagreed and said Mr. Beast actually creates repetitive content because viewers want to see that type of content. This sparked a lively discussion. This debate helped me understand a good blog is never one-sided: it cannot rely only on pleasing readers nor only on pure self-expression; it requires a balance between self expression and understanding what the audience wants.The leaders gave us plenty of opportunities to respond to each other’s points instead of only calling on people with entirely new ideas.
Despite the huge improvement in seminar management, there are still a few problems that arose in this seminar. The first problem is the speaking order. When many people are waiting to speak, the leaders set a speaking order. However, after one or two classmates speak, someone new raises their hand, and the leader changes the speaking order to let the new person speak right away. This makes the discussion messy. My solution is to let the people already on the original list speak first, and then immediately invite the new person who just raised their hand. This may help the seminar run more smoothly. However, this might cause disrupted connections. Let’s say A makes the original point, and B, C, D are three classmates waiting to respond. After B speaks, E suddenly raises their hand with an idea linking to B’s comment. If C and D speak first, E might no longer be able to connect their idea effectively. But if you let E talk first, C and D might lose the thread of the discussion. (If anyone has ideas on how to solve this please leave it in the comments). The second problem is the speech time limit. I feel like many students have a lot to say because they get picked on only a few times, so they have to cram everything into one speech. We end up with 3 or 4 minute speeches covering 5 to 6 points, and everything becomes messy. The leaders then try to control the time by telling the student to speak faster, which makes them rush and share their ideas unclearly. I honestly don’t have a solution for this. Can anyone help with this situation? Thanks.
Overall, I think I improved slightly compared to the previous seminar but I still have a long way to go. I need to expand my basic knowledge. For the next seminar, my goal is still to get 77 or 68 and get at least one high.