My professor assigned this "research paper" (if you can call it that), but I really have no clue what it is the guy wants. Here's what he assigned
<< 1. Read the following article: Dances with Machines, by Rebecca Zacks, at:
http://209.58.177.220/articles/may99/zacks.htm
2. Describe and analyze the main points (main issues) that the author is making.
3. Using library resources, find at least two additional articles that analyze the same issues. The articles must be credible; that is, they must be from mainstream resources. Articles from corporate or personal web sites are not acceptable. (Your articles must be attached to your essay when you submit it to your professor.) You can attach a list of URLs instead of the actual articles; however, the articles must be current (within the past few years).
4. Write an essay that compares your research with the article "Dances with Machines." In your response, you should refer directly to your sources and give a comprehensive and integrative response. Higher credit will be given for responses that show evidence of a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the topics involved >>
Here's that link he gave linkified article (not that I expect anyone to read it)
The problem I'm having is, I don't see any main points in the article. I just see an article about this guy and the way he is using this technology. No main points are made, the author doesn't come to any conclusions. In one paragraph the author talks about how people interacting with computers can change what makes us human, but then never touches on that again.
To me, this seems like a poorly thought out assignment, especially to be called a research paper. I just don't see how reading an article, finding similar articles, then comparing the articles I found to this article qualifies as a research paper. When I think of a research paper, I think of taking a topic, making a conclusion, then proving my conclusion through research, not finding articles then talking about how my articles are different from this article.
I can't even think of what would be a similar article to this one, every article I find on this is simply something either explaining the technology, or talking about this guy (not to mention most of the credible one's are over 5 years old). If the main article had a point like "machines mixing with people is a bad thing, "or this wonderful technology will change our lives, here's how, " maybe there would be something there to grab onto and run with it. But, the author never really makes a definitive point and tries convince you of it. Maybe I'm just used to papers that make a definite conclusions or an arguement, but I'm just lost trying to figure out what to do with this paper. Or maybe I'm just dense and I'm not seeing something here. Forgive me if this sounds ranty, but I'm just confused on this.
<< 1. Read the following article: Dances with Machines, by Rebecca Zacks, at:
http://209.58.177.220/articles/may99/zacks.htm
2. Describe and analyze the main points (main issues) that the author is making.
3. Using library resources, find at least two additional articles that analyze the same issues. The articles must be credible; that is, they must be from mainstream resources. Articles from corporate or personal web sites are not acceptable. (Your articles must be attached to your essay when you submit it to your professor.) You can attach a list of URLs instead of the actual articles; however, the articles must be current (within the past few years).
4. Write an essay that compares your research with the article "Dances with Machines." In your response, you should refer directly to your sources and give a comprehensive and integrative response. Higher credit will be given for responses that show evidence of a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the topics involved >>
Here's that link he gave linkified article (not that I expect anyone to read it)
The problem I'm having is, I don't see any main points in the article. I just see an article about this guy and the way he is using this technology. No main points are made, the author doesn't come to any conclusions. In one paragraph the author talks about how people interacting with computers can change what makes us human, but then never touches on that again.
To me, this seems like a poorly thought out assignment, especially to be called a research paper. I just don't see how reading an article, finding similar articles, then comparing the articles I found to this article qualifies as a research paper. When I think of a research paper, I think of taking a topic, making a conclusion, then proving my conclusion through research, not finding articles then talking about how my articles are different from this article.
I can't even think of what would be a similar article to this one, every article I find on this is simply something either explaining the technology, or talking about this guy (not to mention most of the credible one's are over 5 years old). If the main article had a point like "machines mixing with people is a bad thing, "or this wonderful technology will change our lives, here's how, " maybe there would be something there to grab onto and run with it. But, the author never really makes a definitive point and tries convince you of it. Maybe I'm just used to papers that make a definite conclusions or an arguement, but I'm just lost trying to figure out what to do with this paper. Or maybe I'm just dense and I'm not seeing something here. Forgive me if this sounds ranty, but I'm just confused on this.
Facebook
Twitter