Unit 1 Final

 Source 1: A Pencil Shop, for Texting the Old-Fashioned Way

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/fashion/a-pencil-shop-for-texting-the-old-fashioned-way.html

Molly Young’s article explores the revival of analog writing tools, specifically pencils, in an era very much dominated by digital communication. In doing so, she focuses on Caroline Weaver’s boutique, CW Pencil Enterprise, which is dedicated to selling high-quality pencils from around the world.

The article was written in 2015 -- a time when digital technology had already become the primary mode of communication. Despite this, many felt that there was a growing nostalgia for traditional writing tools. This resurgence of interest in analog methods (such as vinyl records, film photography, and now pencils) aligns with a broader cultural shift toward valuing craftsmanship and tangible experiences.

Young’s tone is lighthearted and almost whimsical, reflecting the seemingly paradoxical nature of a pencil shop thriving in a digital world. Her style merges journalism with cultural critique, using vivid descriptions and anecdotes to immerse the reader in Weaver’s passion for pencils. By mixing personal storytelling, interviews, and historical context, Young is able to build her narrative. She interviews Weaver, explores her motivations, and contextualizes the store within a broader movement of analog revival. The article appears to be written for a general/wide audience, but particularly those interested in culture, design, and technology. It appeals to readers who appreciate craftsmanship and may feel overwhelmed or fatigued by the omnipresence of digital devices.

This article is a feature story, a genre commonly found in lifestyle sections of major publications suchas 'The New York Times'. Feature writing allows for a blend of reporting and storytelling, which Young uses effectively to make the niche topic of pencils engaging. As feature articles prioritize narrative over hard news, Young crafts an engaging, lively piece, as opoosed to merely reporting on a new store opening. Her choice of rich description (ex. describing a Blackwing 602 pencil as having a 'matte black body and a removable rectangular eraser') adds to the story’s appeal.

Through her article, Young successfully highlights the paradox of an analog tool thriving in a digital world, and makes the reader consider why people are drawn to physical, tangible writing instruments despite the convenience of digital alternatives. This contributes to a broader discussion on the relationship between writing and technology. It aligns with other cultural critiques on the resurgence of analog tools in an age of rapid digitalization. Young’s writing implies that technology doesn’t necessarily erase older forms of communication, but that it can also revive interest in them.

Source 2: Why we all need subtitles now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJtb2YXae8&t=382s

This video was created to acknowledge a perceived problem: many people find it hard to understand dialogue in movies and TV shows without subtitles. This statement is supported by a poll cited in the video, which indicates 57% of Vox's YouTube audience feels they cannot understand dialogue without subtitles. The video's release on YouTube is somewhat ironic (not only because streaming services and digital media have made subtitles easily accessible), but also due to the fact that I myself required subtitles to gauge what was being said in the video.

The creator seeks to explain why many viewers feel the need for subtitles. They do so by exploring changes in audio technology, mixing practices, and the way that content is consumed. They use a combination of interviews, historical analysis, examples, anecdotes, and surveys to support their claims and test their hypotheses. The tone they adopt is conversational and engaging, suitable for a YouTube audience of any demographic. The style is informative, using humor and accessible language to explain complex technical issues. For example, the dialogue editor describes her work as 'audio surgery', and also utilizes self-deprecating humor when describing their own experiences of struggling to understand dialogue. The primary audience is viewers of the Vox channel on YouTube, who perhaps are interested in accessible explanations of complex topics, especially as they relate to media consumption.

The video falls into the genre of a YouTube explainer video, which combines elements of documentary and educational content. It uses visual aids (such as clips from films and on-screen graphics) to enhance understanding. The project is influenced by this genre because the visual aspect helps to illustrate the author's points about changes in technology, actor performances, and mixing practices. The YouTube format influences the project by making it concise, engaging, and visually driven. The quick pacing and editing, combined with the use of music and sound effects, keep viewers interested. The use of direct address by the presenter also helps to create a personal connection with the audience. This format allows the author to reach a large audience and to create a conversation around the topic of subtitles.

The author successfully provides a thorough explanation of the factors contributing to the need for subtitles. By using a combination of interviews, historical analysis, and examples, as well as a range of sources (listed at the end of the video), the author makes a convincing argument about how technology and changes in film production have created a situation where dialogue is often difficult to understand. This source fits into a larger conversation about accessibility, audio technology, and the evolution of film and television.

Source 3: The Danger of a Single Story

https://youtu.be/D9Ihs241zeg?feature=shared

Author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED Talk explores the way in which narratives shape perceptions, emphasizing the power of storytelling in reinforcing or challenging stereotypes. She argues that consuming only one perspective about a group, place, or culture leads to misconceptions and limited understanding. Adichie delivered this talk in 2009, a time when globalization was accelerating and digital media was increasingly shaping public discourse. Social media platforms were beginning to amplify both diverse perspectives and dangerous misinformation. Her talk preemptively addressed concerns about the digital age’s role in controlling narratives.

Adichie’s tone is reflective and personal, yet urgent. She merges humor, irony, and personal anecdotes to make her argument both persuasive and relatable. She primarily uses storytelling as her rhetorical method, drawing from her own experiences growing up in Nigeria and encountering Western literature, as well as how others perceived her based on limited narratives about Africa. This personal approach makes her argument deeply human and emotionally resonant. The TED audience is global, consisting of academics, professionals, and general viewers. Adichie’s talk is particularly relevant to educators, writers, and media consumers -- anyone engaged in shaping or interpreting narratives.

This talk is a blend of personal essay and cultural critique, yet is accessibile, relatable, and thought-provoking. Adichie’s storytelling approach makes her argument more compelling than a straightforward lecture on media literacy. Her ability to blend autobiography with social commentary has influenced countless discussions on representation in literature and media. The classic TED Talks format, which requires a short, to-the-point speech with a lot of impact, shapes how Adichie delivers her argument. Instead of an in-depth academic analysis, she distills her insights into memorable stories and quotable statements, making her talk widely shareable and influential.

Adichie’s talk is undoubtedly successful -- it has become one of the most widely viewed and referenced TED Talks, used in classrooms and journalism alike to illustrate the importance of diverse narratives. I studied this text/video multiple times during English Literature class growing up, and am able to see firsthand that Adichie's argument has only gotten more persuasive over time. Her talk ties directly into debates on writing, media representation, and the digital spread of information. As technology advances, so does the ability to control, distort, or diversify narratives. Adichie’s warning about the 'single story' is particularly relevant today, when algorithms can reinforce echo chambers by curating content based on the preferences of users. She states that they 'create stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but they are incomplete'. This highlights how narratives shape perception.

Source 4: Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01787-8

The article explores how AI is changing education, and specifically its effects on decision-making, student motivation (or lack thereof), and safety concerns. The authors approach the topic with a research-driven mindset, using data and analysis to highlight both the benefits and risks of AI integration in classrooms. They mention that their primary goal is to inform educators, policymakers, and researchers about how AI is shifting traditional learning environments, whether this is for better or worse.

This article comes at a time when AI tools are becoming increasingly common in education, from automated grading systems to AI tutors and even generative AI helping students with assignments. The authors of the essay recognize the urgency of this issue and thus respond to a growing concern: are we relying too much on AI in ways that might be diminishing human agency in learning? Their tone is academic but cautious -- they balance their reasoning behind AI’s potential with its unintended consequences. Methodologically, the athors take a structured research approach and analyze AI’s influence on three key areas:

1. Decision-making: how AI might be reducing critical thinking by automating choices.
2. Laziness: whether students are becoming overly dependent on AI, leading to disengagement.
3. Safety: the risks AI poses in educational settings, including ethical concerns and potential biases.

Their primary audience includes educators, researchers, and policymakers (ie. people who have the power to shape how AI is used in schools). By using a formal academic style with sold, empirical evidence (as well as references/links to sources), they are able to ensure that their argument is taken seriously.

This journal falls into the category of academic research -- a genre that requires structured analysis, citations, and clear methodology. Because the research article format demands rigor and must ensure high quality, specificity within facts, and clear communication, the authors take a measured approach, making sure that their arguments are backed by data as opposed to their own personal opinions. At the same time, however, this might limit how accessible or engaging the article is to a general audience -- while it may be thorough and detailed, I would not exactly call it light reading. Hence, for the most part, I believe the authors succeeded in illustrating the key factors relating the rapid spread of AI with a lack of motivation and effort within the student body. The authors effectively demonstrate that AI is altering how students learn and how educators make decisions. They provide compelling evidence that, while AI can be a helpful tool, it also introduces risks that shouldn’t be ignored. A quote that stuck out to me in this article is 'the integration of AI in educational settings has led to significant changes in how decisions are made, often reducing the active involvement of educators in the decision-making process'. This suggests that, while AI can streamline administrative tasks, it might also be diminishing the role of human judgment in education.

This article is part of a much larger discussion about AI’s role in education. Other scholars and educators have debated similar issues, with some arguing that AI enhances learning opportunities while others worry that it might be creating a passive generation of learners who rely too heavily on technology. This study adds a nuanced perspective by bringing data into the conversation, making it more than just speculation -- instead, hard facts and statistics are offered, making both the credibility of the authors and their work stronger. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to the debate on AI in education. I would critique it in that it doesn’t necessarily offer solutions for this growing problem, but it does do a great job of highlighting the issues we must address moving forward.