Three Mile Island Nuclear Meltdown
What went well?
Our group worked really well together. We all did our share and kept our word during this project. There were no moments during the process where one person was holding the group up because of incomplete work. We all did research outside of class and we all produced quality work that resulted in a great poster.
What did not?
Honestly, I can not think of anything that did not go well. Although I ended up doing the actual construction of the poster visually, we all contributed and I did not mind to put in a little extra work out of class. We got our stuff done on time and did not have any issues.
What would you do differently next time?
Next time, I would spend more time trying to get the sizing of the text and pictures right. It was really difficult to visualize when putting together. Usually, an 8.5x11 piece of paper is simple to see printed because it is generally the size of our computer screen. When working with something feet long, it was much harder to actually think about how large each word would be. Next time, I would spend more time thinking about this so that it prints perfectly.
10 infographic tips
I think our group was very good at being concise; we spent a long time making sure our information was clear, to the point, and supported one idea the whole way through. As well as visual; we spent a long time making our chart visually appealing and using primary sources to make it further visual. We were different because we used a layout of a reactor and stars indicating faulty areas to represent what happened in the meltdown as well as using newspaper articles and comics from the time to help display the overall point. We were accurate by using all accurate information and using a layout of a reactor that has all to scale parts. This helped demonstrate how little or big each fault was to the machine. We were varied because we used a picture of the reactor as our background and used pictures and bubble to make it look interesting.
We could have worked harder at being 'smarter,' attractive, and creative because we used a lot of text in our infographic that could have been demonstrated in other ways. We also could have worked more at being transparent. Although we had many primary sources and took down all cites used, in the end we did not include this to our infographic because of lack of time to make proper citations.
Our group worked really well together. We all did our share and kept our word during this project. There were no moments during the process where one person was holding the group up because of incomplete work. We all did research outside of class and we all produced quality work that resulted in a great poster.
What did not?
Honestly, I can not think of anything that did not go well. Although I ended up doing the actual construction of the poster visually, we all contributed and I did not mind to put in a little extra work out of class. We got our stuff done on time and did not have any issues.
What would you do differently next time?
Next time, I would spend more time trying to get the sizing of the text and pictures right. It was really difficult to visualize when putting together. Usually, an 8.5x11 piece of paper is simple to see printed because it is generally the size of our computer screen. When working with something feet long, it was much harder to actually think about how large each word would be. Next time, I would spend more time thinking about this so that it prints perfectly.
10 infographic tips
I think our group was very good at being concise; we spent a long time making sure our information was clear, to the point, and supported one idea the whole way through. As well as visual; we spent a long time making our chart visually appealing and using primary sources to make it further visual. We were different because we used a layout of a reactor and stars indicating faulty areas to represent what happened in the meltdown as well as using newspaper articles and comics from the time to help display the overall point. We were accurate by using all accurate information and using a layout of a reactor that has all to scale parts. This helped demonstrate how little or big each fault was to the machine. We were varied because we used a picture of the reactor as our background and used pictures and bubble to make it look interesting.
We could have worked harder at being 'smarter,' attractive, and creative because we used a lot of text in our infographic that could have been demonstrated in other ways. We also could have worked more at being transparent. Although we had many primary sources and took down all cites used, in the end we did not include this to our infographic because of lack of time to make proper citations.
Comments
No comments have been posted yet.
Log in to post a comment.