This is the last post of the week and the last post until SPRING BREAK for me! Its my full podcast (like every other cut) and is a rough draft.
Here it is!
Firstly, I just want to warn everyone that this is definitely a rough draft. It is filled with many pieces of my awkward voice. Sometimes there are moments where I stutter or pause at awkward parts, so it seems rough at some points. There are also some awkward transitions where I'm not sure how to integrate my interview pieces in certain areas. The transitions I feel are the worst part of the rough draft at this point because of the awkward pauses and inserts of the interviews.
Some good pieces of the rough cut are that I think that I have all the elements that I need to prove the importance of the different genres. I also feel that I have a solid introduction and conclusion that wrap up the ideas together so that the podcast seems more put together
I thought your podcast was really fun the way you made it feel like Sunday morning breakfast talk. I also like that you formed it as if both professors were there at the same time. One thing I think you should change would be to not discredit yourself by repeating that you don't understand scientific journals. It just isn't necessary to say anything negative about yourself. But the music selection was great.
ReplyDelete1. The rough draft does an excellent job at incorporating all of the conventions for a podcast into the project. There is a good of all parties and music.
ReplyDelete2. It was very creative to edit in the responses from the interviews into the podcast as if they were being answered live. This made it seem like an active conversation, which is much more entertaining than just one person telling me about genres. The tone was also very upbeat and kept me interested.
3. I would suggest editing the response from Professor Stock so that it is louder because I could hardly hear what she was saying. Also, I would say either get rid of the music during the talking or lower it, because I found myself paying more attention to that at times than the actual words being spoken.
I looked at section 13.2 on pages 263-7 in A Student's Guide to First-Year Writing to help me analyze what was important about form in Sienna's podcast. I really admired that your voice came through the podcast, because it is something I always have trouble with.
This is a really neat podcast your have created, it is really engaging and I love the beginning. I have conducted a copy-edit suggestion for the peer review:
ReplyDeleteLanguage is well used in this project. I love how the beginning has this very comforting, seemingly informal tone that presents the project in a welcoming way that gives in this unique sense. It's very engadging and welcoming and kept me listening to your podcast segment.
However, jumping in and out of the interviews threw me off a bit.The podcast would start with a interview with your two subjects, asking them a single question or two questions, and then you would exapnd off of that. Logically, this flows well, but as the interviews kept popping back up I started to lose where I was in the content. This could merely be a limitation of audio editing skills or irreversible mistakes within recording, and is a minor complaint as it all comes together nicely. The only other petty complaint I can offer is that the background music became a bit grating at the end or would take away from the focus of the subject matter as I'd drift in and out of listening to this background track. However, in the beginning it sets the tone of the podcast perfectly.
credible sources could be sited better by simply expanding on the audience aspect of this project. As the podcast is a rhetorical investigation and you establish the authors, form, and purpose well with your explanations, there is little discussed about the audience of your professional's writing.