English1130Winter2012/TedTalk Summary and Analysis
007 and 012
Length: 2-4 Double-spaced pages in 12 point font The first date listed below applies to Section 002, the second to Section 003
Editing Draft Due:
Section 007: Friday, January 20, 10:00 pm
Section 012: Monday, January 23, 10:00 pm
Peer Editing Due:
Section 007: Monday, January 23, 10:00 pm
Section 012: Wednesday, January 25, 10:00 pm
Final Draft Due:
Section 007: Monday, January 30, 10:00 pm
Section 012: Monday, January 30, 10:00 pm
Instructions: Summarize and analyze the TedTalk you chose as your research inspiration. Given that the subject of the talk will become the basis of your research and writing for the rest of the term, it is important to make sure you understand—and are able reflect critically upon—the ideas presented and developed in the talk.
The essay should consist of three parts and three to six paragraphs depending on your analysis:
1. A summary of the talk in your own words, starting with the argument of the talk (the point that the speaker is trying to convince us of) and moving through other ideas of the talk in a sequence of descending importance (your sequence might be different than the sequence of the talk). Don't add commentary at this point, simply recast the original. Remember that there is a transcript included on the talk's web page so that you can read the talk as well as watch it.
2. Analyze how the speaker gets his or her point across by working through one or two tools that the author uses to illustrate the concepts of the talk.
3. Analyze your own relationship to the talk. Discuss what made you pick it and how it relates to your academic interests.
Rules: The paper must be formatted in MLA style and must include a Works Cited page. Papers not formatted properly will not be graded.
You must have a complete copy of your draft for peer editing.
Sections 007 and 012
Things to Remember
Your comments are public, not private.
Comments should be constructive criticism. Use polite, helpful language.
The comments that people make on your draft may not be correct. Consider carefully how you respond to them.
Paste your draft into your group’s Google Document underneath your initials.
Or, if you wish, you can compose your draft in the Google Document, again under your initials.
Paste the link to your Ted Talk above your assignment.
Watch the Ted Talks of all the other members of your group.
You can use the “comments” function of Google Documents to make specific comments about particular parts of the paper. In windows press “Control + m” or right click on your mouse and select “comment” to make comments.
Otherwise answer the questions below after the writer’s essay in the font colour you have been assigned, marked by your initials.
When you respond to the questions I have posed about the draft, you don’t have to repeat the question, but make it clear what you are talking about.
Your first sentence is too general. It is more about the subject of the talk than the substance. I think the main idea of the talk is...
Read each paper twice. The first time just get a feel for it without marking or writing anything. The second time you read it, write your responses to the questions.
Highlight wordy sentences and grammatical mistakes. You don’t have to explain them, just draw the writer’s attention to them.
Has the author captured the main idea of the talk precisely in the first sentence?
How might the author improve the first sentence?
Has the author presented the subordinate ideas of the talk clearly and correctly in descending order of importance?
How might those ideas be expressed and/or ordered differently?
Use highlighting and the comments function to mark places where transitions are non-existent or week.
Are the links between ideas in the summary logical?
Are there any gaps between sentences that should be filled?
Are there any weak transitions that require strengthening?
Has the author discussed how some of the illustrations or examples of the talk work?
How might the author improve the discussion of illustrations?
Has the author discussed ethical, logical, and emotional appeals?
How might the author improve the discussion of the appeals?
Does the author link the talk to his or her area of studies?
Is there enough detail in the author's rationale for choosing the talk?
List up to five things that the author of this paper could do to make his or her paper better.