Avery Allen

Stefan Britt
ENG 111
December 16, 2015
Critical Reflection
The last paper of the semester seemed at first to me absolutely terrifying as a concept how was I
supposed to use multiple sources to write a paper called an AMS. I choose to do it on technology
and I used articles from writers: Batson, Carr, and Tufte. I choose these things because I love
technology and the advancement of it. My major problem when I sat down to write this paper
was how was I going to write which I figured out the next time I was in class. I figured with the
help of all of the things we learned in class I might be able to actually do this paper. I used my
critical thinking skills by first rereading: Batson, Carr and Tufte; articles on technology. I used
them to get inside their minds and figured out why they wrote, what they wrote. Not just how to
discredit them and their theories but update the ideas that technology is bad. Changing the
narrative that it isnt neither good nor bad just something that is brand new and unique in its own
regard. Then setting and making a map and basically plugin all of my thoughts of the articles
giving them a synthesis of each and every article. Then taking those synthesis and doing the
breakdown analysis of them just taking it to the next level. Making it more and more of a paper
giving a solid feel instead of an all over glimpse of what could be or even what it should be.
First I started with the rereading of all of each writers work. While reading I thought to
myself and noted mentally what is wrong with what they are saying better what are the saying
that should be changed and shown in another light. I really couldnt see their quarrels with the

rise of technology at some points in the articles especially Carrs. It hurt my eyes to read some of
what seemed like utter bias in my opinion. However there is always more than meets the eye
and the same was true for all of the articles. The reoccurring theme in each one seemed to be
that even though each author didnt necessarily enjoy technology they did see that it did have its
advantages. Such as allowing them to complete their work faster. I think with a little more
critical thinking they would have saw even more things and situations that were beneficial effects
of technology. However thats where I come in it was my job to go a step further in that thought
process. First I thought how what each authors said effect anything in my life in the way they
stated it. When I figured out what did do just that I had my starting point to problematize.
I problematized a couple things one google effects on learning and the use of PowerPoint
in the classroom. Firstly the effects google have on learning, Carr seemed to argue that google in
fact made us less intelligent and not help us out; but I to the contrary argued that as it did not
make us more intelligent. However it made us work easier and that in turn makes us more
intelligent. Carr himself saw this as he stated it in his own article which in turn made
problematizing that statement/article way easier. The same thing occurred when I went to
problematize the use of PowerPoint in the classroom. In Tuftes article he argues that the
cognitive style of PowerPoint doesnt help but instead take away from learning how to write a
report using sentences. That was the basis of my problematizing with him being that I am a
student that uses PowerPoint and still knows how to write reports. It is the box in thinking that is
used by these authors that is easy to problematize everything doesnt have to be so cookie cutter.
How was I to show problematization without seeming one sided that is where synthesis
and analysis came in. I tried my best to give a little insight into what the author said to get their
points across. Which was my synthesis and the next step I tried to convey was my analysis of

these points. I tried to be fair in what was said and what was written in my points. However
sometimes that is a little difficult when youre at the same time trying to convey your own voice
in a paper. Sometimes that voice does sound a little bias but then it wouldnt a good analysis
would it.
These are all the techniques I used in my AMS paper critical thinking, problematization,
and synthesis/analysis. Each of these have their own unique thing they give a paper and without
one the others cant function well in this type of paper. As I look back at my work I am utterly
amazed at myself that I could actually complete that type of paper when I was actually terrified
of it at first.