Similarities:
Both had similar main purposes directed at the audience: to inform/evaluate the effectiveness of using powerpoint. The articles certainly introduce the topic and discuss why it is an important. They also both do a good job catching the audience's attention Additionally, both articles seemed to introduce a brief summery of the topic and past criticisms and reviews on it as well. They utilized visual aids and results from their study in their discussion. They both definitely use a lot of sources to support their points or while discussing past arguments or reviews of the topic, strengthening the overall quality of both articles.
Differences:
Although both seem to be pretty well written articles, "Is there power in PowerPoint? A field test of the efficacy of PowerPoint on memory and recall of religious sermons" seems to be more formally written and structured. They begin the article with an abstract which is very formal to begin with. Additionally, they present visual aids that are very specific to their discussion, while the other article seems to have found general slides to present in the article. However, "A Case for Sentence Headlines and Visual Evidence," provided small sections for the reader, making the structure easier to figure out and read. The other article was well organized too, but the long sections made the article look daunting.
Both had similar main purposes directed at the audience: to inform/evaluate the effectiveness of using powerpoint. The articles certainly introduce the topic and discuss why it is an important. They also both do a good job catching the audience's attention Additionally, both articles seemed to introduce a brief summery of the topic and past criticisms and reviews on it as well. They utilized visual aids and results from their study in their discussion. They both definitely use a lot of sources to support their points or while discussing past arguments or reviews of the topic, strengthening the overall quality of both articles.
Differences:
Although both seem to be pretty well written articles, "Is there power in PowerPoint? A field test of the efficacy of PowerPoint on memory and recall of religious sermons" seems to be more formally written and structured. They begin the article with an abstract which is very formal to begin with. Additionally, they present visual aids that are very specific to their discussion, while the other article seems to have found general slides to present in the article. However, "A Case for Sentence Headlines and Visual Evidence," provided small sections for the reader, making the structure easier to figure out and read. The other article was well organized too, but the long sections made the article look daunting.
No comments:
Post a Comment