This post is directed to my peer reviewers, and reflects upon production week and the rough cut of my podcast for project 2. Here is my rough cut.
Key Information
Basically, I have yet to add in the clips from my interviews to my podcast. I plan to do this during spring break and over post-production week. I have also yet to select an introductory sound effect or music clip for my introduction. I am aware that not all genre conventions will be met until these are inserted.
Weaknesses
In addition to the missing interview clips and sound effects, I am concerned with the tone of voice I use throughout the podcast. I am aware that I change my voice relatively infrequently. Does this take away from some interesting aspect of the podcast? When would a shift in tone improve the quality of my podcast? How important is this to my project overall?
Strengths
I have considered the strengths in my podcast to be the organization of information, and the overall analysis of the topic. I believe that I answer the question of how authors in science-based fields interact with rhetorical strategies and situations when composing texts.
Is my organization effective? Are my points of analysis relevant and clearly presented? In terms of analysis of strategies, do I cover all of my bases? Should I include more of an analysis of rhetorical situation/context as well as rhetorical strategies?
Hi Avalon, I really liked your segment so far, but I would like to give you a few suggestions. I am going off the first activity (content) in the peer reviews activity post so you can follow those questions if this comment gets confusing.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I like how you introduced yourself, I thought that it sounded like it should be on tape and I think it was very effective for a podcast. I also liked how you clearly laid out what you were going to cover in your podcast in the beginning, so the reader knows what they are going to listen to.
I thought that your content of what you had so far was good. It was properly laid out and easy to follow. However, you still have a lot of work to do. One problem that I had was that I felt like I just kept waiting and waiting to hear parts from the interview. You kept hinting that an interview clip would be played, but it never was. I think that when you incorporate it, break it into parts so it flows naturally and every time you say something about the interviews, you have an interview clip, so the reader doesn't have to wait.
I also think that you should add some background or at least some intro music so it doesn't sound like a book reading, and it sounds more like a radio program or something like that.
I thought that you introducing your interviewee was smart and it was effective that you stated their credentials, it was a good way to basically give credit to your sources. I would maybe add more information about credit to the other topics and examples you bring up (however, I'm not really sure how to do that for a podcast).
I thought your details were good for what you have, but you need to add a lot more. I also think you should maybe include more specific examples for the different types of genres in the scientific fields.
I'm excited to hear the rest of your project!
I like the calm voice that you have throughout the entire podcast. However, I did get a little bored with the tone, but adding sound effects and music between each section should help to break things up so don't feel like you have to re-record everything. I loved the introduction, but adding a "stinger" at the beginning, or even opening it up with a song, could help to get listeners hooked and really listen in to what you have to say. Overall, I loved your analysis and once you add sound effects and music you should be good to go!
ReplyDelete