Hello again🫨
Last Wednesday we had a seminar about travel adverts. For those who didn’t participate, we were separated into four groups, and each group had to create a travel advert. Then we discussed the four adverts and made comparisons. All the questions focused on what makes a blog attractive, the placement of elements in the advert, and how the advert could be improved. Initially, we were all discussing how “imaginary arrows” pointed to some objects (which most people mentioned just to make others laugh, including me). However, these discussions lacked value because they were very surface-level. Then more of us moved on to the colour scheme, the placement of objects, and how elements worked together. This sparked more interesting discussion as we debated how the focus of a nightlife advert could be a man standing in the middle of a huge crowd, or how the size of a photo could affect its visual impact on the reader. These discussions were what earned us middles and highs.
From this discussion, I gained new insights into advert composition: for example, how invisible lines actually determine whether an advert looks “messy” or “organized” (the nightlife advert with lines coming from everywhere versus the Hawaii advert, which mainly used vertical lines). I also learned how discount expressions (original price 3888 to a discounted price of 2888, or 20 percent off) can affect how readers perceive the advert. These insights help me understand adverts better in real life (and understand how they try to persuade me to buy their products, making me more rational😂).
My scores improved greatly from 67 to 78 (I finally achieved my goal). Furthermore, I got one high and only three lows. In my last reflection, I mentioned that I struggled to track classmates’ points and connect them to my own. My solution was to fold a piece of paper in half and write other people’s points on the left and my own on the right. I tried this method in the current seminar, and it worked extremely well. Not only could I remember my points and make clear connections, but it also helped me focus less on my own ideas and listen more carefully to what classmates said. This allowed me to give more responses and increase interaction between different ideas. I believe this is also why I earned more middles and highs than in the last seminar: I could connect two or three ideas across different adverts instead of only presenting my own ideas.
The leaders did an okay job managing the discussion, but I felt the previous seminar had better management. This time, the leaders’ method of choosing speakers was like communism. There was a list of 9 or 10 people waiting to speak, and we went one by one. Although everyone had a fair chance to talk, it reduced valuable discussion. If Terry said something I wanted to comment on but there were still 7 people before me, I would most likely abandon my point and move on. In this way, we lost many meaningful exchanges because we had to refer back to points made much earlier. In the previous seminar, by contrast, the leaders allowed 4 or 5 responses to each point before moving on, and half the class once discussed a single idea together. I felt there were more idea clashes and useful insights in the previous seminar than in this one. However, this speaker list did ensure that everyone raised their hand before speaking instead of blurting out comments and interrupting. But this problem could be solved by leaders simply cutting off interruptions, rather than using such a strict system. Overall, I feel leaders could allow more freedom in discussion instead of strictly following a list.
My way of balancing new points and add‑ons is to use a short list of only two or three people. For example, A, B, C (in the order they raised their hands). After A speaks, D, E, F, G, H may comment, but B and C are still guaranteed to speak. This way, we can have insightful discussion while still maintaining order.
Furthermore, quieter students did not speak enough. Since most lack initiative, they rely on leaders to invite them. Leaders only called on quiet students once or twice, and the questions were quite difficult, so most skipped their chance. Leaders are supposed to ensure everyone participates, and if quiet students receive 0 or 1, it shows seminar management is not sufficient. My solution is to call on quieter students first for every question so they get 4 or 5 chances to speak, earning at least 2 points.
Overall, I improved the most in this seminar: my scores rose greatly, and I connected ideas more successfully. However, I still need to reduce the number of “lows” that added little value to the discussion. My goal for the next seminar is to get at least 77 and reduce lows to 2 or fewer. In the next seminar I’m going to be a leader, and I will try to fix the problems that I mentioned in this reflection.