Doing this project, I found the two ‘articles’ that I analysed were good choices to support my argument. The earthquake article was able to help make the claim and support it; since the article illustrated that the writer’s main aim was to communicate to us about the dangers of earthquakes. The image, I believe, made this claim stronger by suggesting that even images – results of data – could even be a bit subjective (I am also proud that I was able to find how the image wasn’t objective, as it came as a surprise to me and possibly the audience).
I am glad that the project was overall successful, since it took time for me to search for the value that I chose, as nearly all examples of science communication didn’t contain my value. My first value was how the readers’ cannot remain objective while reading, viewing, or listening to different modes of science communication; but since there are no algorithms to find out about each reader’s reactions, I changed the topic. During the changing of topics, I kept on getting myself confused about what the main aim was – so I believe that the mode of ‘presentation’ was the best for this topic since it is simple, with both visual and auditory input.
From this project, I learned that there needs to be a clear planning before starting the search for articles, or that it may have been better to find two favourite articles, then to find the similarity between them (I found the article, looked for and chose a value, then looked for the second piece). If given another chance, this is the part of the project that I would change, as this may have made analysing the two articles easier since the value is already there in both articles.