Reflection on Post-Production

   I will admit that some things went rather well for my post-production cycle.  What the project needed to be and how I had to improve my Rough cut was really cleared up.  I think my peer reviews were helpful and the ones I received were definitively helpful.  My rough cut was lacking in evidence and dynamic audio.

    What went wrong is rather clear, I have yet to submit my final cut.  I found that I simply did not have enough time to finish it.  Having a Physics test tomorrow morning didn't help either.  The standard answers to do better next time would be to better plan ahead and do more work ahead of time.  I do generally have trouble with such thing but this week I felt I did the best I could with the time I had.

    I think Project 3 will go far smoother because I've gotten the hang of the structure of this classes assignments and I'll be doing the standard college essay.  The essay of course means far less room for technical problems.  And I won't have to deal with audio recording.

    Overall, I think my project will turn out well, if late. I know and can use the genre conventions, and I think that I have some genuinely interesting things to say about my topic.

Peer Review B for Jason Boley

    I recently reviewed The Future of American Podcasts by Jason Boley and made some suggestions along the lines of copy-editing.  I focused on how language and pacing could be used to more effectively engage his audience.

    The changes I suggested should make the podcast better maintain a listeners interest.  When dealing with a technical subject in an audio format any lapse in attention can cause the audience to miss an essential piece of information and become completely lost.  Speeding up and varying the pacing can help audience engagement as can wording choices.  Brief and precise wording helps convey essential information.

    I was impressed with how the interviewees in this podcast were established as interesting characters.  I found myself far more likely to care about what they said because of that.  I'll try to incorporate that kind of personality in my podcast in some way (I'll have to do it differently than this as interviews are nearly so important a piece of my podcast).

Peer Review A for Rhiannon Bauer of Overenthusiastic

    I reviewed Rhiannon Bauer's podcast on writing in biology.  I made several suggestions centering on the form of her podcast.

    Most of my suggestions were directed at the flow of the podcast and how it could be changed to be more easily comprehended.  I said that improvements could be made by tightening the script, polishing the audio quality, and integrating music, effects, and external audio clips.  I think that these changes could help this podcast explain its difficult subject in a more interesting manner.

    I suggested the inclusion of podcast conventions such as the intro and outro as heard in our class genre examples.  This podcast could use the cohesion granted by such standard elements.

    The thoroughness of the content in this podcast impressed me.  I've had trouble with the integration of technical documents into my podcast and was impressed at how well they were integrated here.  I'll be trying to bring the content of my own podcast up to this standard.

Reflection on Project 2 Production- a tired

    That was a production.  I have decided that I am not a fan of audio recording.  Though I think that I've learned my program well enough that the next section should go rather smoothly.

    I think that I'll mainly be doing Global revisions next week as I think I have a fair grasp on making the podcast workable, but I really need to rework some of my project.  I need to better organize the whole thing and make it more evidence driven.

    My process work took a bit of a tumble this week overall, but I think I've learned from it.

    I think this project will work out with a few more minor catastrophes and some lessons learned.  I am a bit more worried about the video essay than I was before.  Putting "learn video editing" on my to do list.

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

Here is a link to a rather rough cut of my writing in physics podcast.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5LknFx8QunJLVdTM3RPeGd2UVU/view?usp=sharing

There are some definitive weaknesses in this cut that I'll be addressing in my next version.  I should be able to sort out the audio's habit of fading out at weird times.  I also need to do a far better job integrating my evidence into the podcast.

I think that the podcast follows the genre conventions fairly well overall, but I'd like to know if you agree.

Do you think that starting the body of the podcast with the grant proposal works or should I open with the research paper?

Production Report B

This is a link to the intro section of my writing in Physics Podcast;


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5LknFx8QunJa0FseUxYRlktM0U/view?usp=sharing

These are the sections of my outline it was drawn from;

Opener Line

• Clearly introduce self and topic.
• Snappy.
• With Personality- sets tone and gives a reason to keep listening.

   Subject Intro

• Define scope- any professional writing in a physics career.
• Not just research papers.
• Give some idea of research done- establish credibility, do not overdue- that would be boring and pointless.
• Reason to care? -Physics is awesome?

I had to change this section quite a bit to make it really work as a podcast. The most major change was how I added a more through topic introduction to the very beginning to serve as a bit of a hook before my opener. I decided that beginning with the opener just didn't feel like a podcast to me and I remembered that many podcasts I tend to listen to have a section before the opener.

I was also unable to fit the research bullet point in in a way that didn't feel clunky and awkward.

Production Report A

This is a link to the Research paper section of my writing in Physics Podcast;


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5LknFx8QunJQkxVdzlKNktod00/view?usp=sharing

These are the sections of my outline it was drawn from;

   2)  The Research Paper

• Sterile- Keep it brief and to the point.
• Standard organization- Look at any research paper
• Taught in lab reports
• Conventions designed to promote clarity and impartiality.

   3)  The Narrative of a Research Paper

• Helps convey results and how they were found.
• Keeps interest. -We were looking for x and we found it opposed to we did y and saw x.
• Surprised me; essential to a good paper according to interviewees

Converting the my rather rough outline into audio was an interesting experience. I'm not used to writing for audio so I had to focus on making my script understandable when read aloud and "read able". One challenge I face there is my tendency to write words I have trouble pronouncing, like "exists"; I have a minor lisp that tends to come out when I'm recording.

The technical side went surprisingly smoothly and I really have nothing to complain about there.

Reflection upon Pre-Production

    When I started to think back on how my pre-production went, my brain started laughing hysterically;  that, is rarely a good sign.

   Let's start with what went wrong.  My mike decided to not pick up most of my audio.  It had a cut off point at just below the volume I tested it at.  If I ever have to interview people like this again, I'm not going to take interviews Monday, so I can have time to properly test out the equipment that I have to pick up on Monday morning.

    I also need to take my own schedule more into account when planning interviews.  I scheduled both the interviews fairly close together.  This meant that I didn't have time to go over my first interview before starting my second which would have helped me better conduct the second.  I should be more considerate of my own limitations rather than just going along with my interviewees' first preference.

    On a positive note, my interviews actually went rather well.  My interviewees were kind and informative.  Both my interviews went without a hitch (except for the aforementioned minor technical catastrophe).

    I think that the information I got will be useful to my project.  Dr. Manne's explanations of non-research work can help fill out the podcast and Dr. Wolgemuth compared writing in physics to that in biology in a way that I can use to better explain the specifics of writing in physics.

    They both said some very interesting things about the use of narrative structure in research papers that surprised me.  That will likely become the most interesting section of my podcast.

    I know that I'll end up pulling through and delivering a good project by the end of this.  The risk is more about whether I can do so in a way that doesn't destroy my sleep schedule or sanity.  I need to control my work schedule and keep myself calm.  I'm honestly not sure how well that will work out.

Production Schedule- my attempt at a

Here's a link to my production schedule:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y6NxdJIwZlEqiXAM-H_uHYwZVSOPyT2O1PzX-EcRtK8/edit?usp=sharing

Content Outline- my podcast's

Open: 

    Opener Line

• Clearly introduce self and topic.
• Snappy.
• With Personality- sets tone and gives a reason to keep listening.

    Subject Intro

• Define scope- any professional writing in a physics career.
• Not just research papers.
• Give some idea of research done- establish credibility, do not overdue- that would be boring and pointless.
• Reason to care? -Physics is awesome?

Body:

    1)  Misc. Writings

• Outreach stuff -Manne on why it matters (gets people into the field, opens doors), examples here.
• Recommendation Letters- Manne: Selling strengths, spinning weaknesses, very important to students career, assumed baseline positivity- don't undersell.

    2)  The Research Paper

• Sterile- Keep it brief and to the point.
• Standard organization- Look at any research paper
• Taught in lab reports
• Conventions designed to promote clarity and impartiality.

    3)  The Narrative of a Research Paper

• Helps convey results and how they were found.
• Keeps interest. -We were looking for x and we found it opposed to we did y and saw x.
• Manne quote
• Wolgemuth quote
• Surprised me; essential to a good paper according to interviewees

    4)  Speaking

        Conferences

• Attending talks.
• Thesis defense.

        Class

• Learn as you go -Manne
• TAship?
• Important part of the job; doesn't seem to usually be formally taught

    5)  Grant Request?

• Non-expert level.
• Why is this worth money?
• Necessary to research.
• Wolgemuth on differences with Bio grant-  less hypothesis oriented, can be more of a "interesting question.

Close:

    Writing in Physics is not a monolithic entirely sterile form, though some of it is.  Anyone interested in Physics should get to know its writings beyond the common perceptions.  Knowing the conventions behind the writings helps one better understand appreciate the writings.  A knowledge of such subtleties can also be greatly useful to anyone looking to improve their own writing in the field.

    Outro:  This has been...

Academic Discourse and Genre

    The main of the American Journal of Physics is made up of article simply referred to as Papers.  These Papers serve to communicate a subject on a non-expert level and to show how the subject might be taught.  The text largely follows the standard scientific paper format with well defined, labeled sections.  The introduction and background section tend to be far longer than typical.

    Near the back of the Journal reside the Notes and Discussions.  I see these more commonly called something along the lines of Comments or replies.  They're through responses to previous articles or comments often in the form of "you're wrong and this is why".

    Right at the back are a couple of Book Reviews.  They are highly descriptive, taking up nearly a page.

    The Journal begins this issue with a call for a new editor.  Followed by a letter to the previous one.

     Some definitions;

Papers-  A multi. page text in the format of a scientific report.

Comments-  Through point by point replies to articles and other comments.  Often corrections.

Reviews- Book reviews in about half page essay form.

Help Wanted Ad- job posting for a new editor complete with description of duties and requisites.

Letters to the Editor- A short letter from a reader expounding on a previous article.

Rhetorical Analysis of an Acedemic Journal

    The library didn't carry print copies of any of the journals I looked at in my last post so I chose to examine the American Journal of Physics.

 
    This journal seems to have an interesting policy with its authors.  The authors are listed only by name and place of work.  More interesting, is the variety of authors.  Most of the authors are from US universities, but some are from abroad.  One article even has several high school authors.

    The primary audience of this journal is people teaching physics at the graduate and undergraduate levels.  The content tells how to teach various subjects and explains the same for people with a background in physics though not necessarily in the specific field.  The secondary audience is teachers and students reading to broaden their understanding of various fields.

    The only major current event that I think may have affected this issue is that the journal is seeking a new editor.  I wasn't able to detect any effect this had on the journal.

  I think that this journal exists to better physics teaching.  From the non-expert level of required background to the inclusion of high school authors,  The entire journal seems to say "you can learn/teach anything in physics".

My Major -physics is

    Students in my major are taught to understand and manipulate situations governed by the laws of physics, especially where these situations differ from standard intuition.  The more practical skills learned involve the operation of laboratory environments and complex problem solving.  This training provides a good base, but does not always prepare a student for their particular career.

    Physicists can end up in a wide variety of fields ranging from education to medicine. The skills developed in a physics education can apply to most fields requiring the operation of advanced machinery or analysis of complex operations.

    I chose to study physics because I find the kind of problem solving and discovery fun.  The  most exciting work in the field has gained a good bit of attention recently.  Everything that CERN does is awesome in the old sense of the word.  The LIGO Gravity wave discovery has everyone ecstatic.  Biophysics in general is always doing something interesting.

Some of the bigger journals in Physics follow;
    -Reviews of Modern Physics
    -Nature Physics
    -Physics Report
    -Nature Materials

My Interviewees on Social Media. -the presence of

    Professor Manne, my first interviewee, is not on any social media.  He thinks that new people to the field should probably use it to their advantage, but he feels that he entered the feild early enough that it won't be necessary for him.

    My second interviewee, Professor Wolgemuth, has a brief Linked in page, but his biggest use of social media is Youtube.  His research team has their own channel.  They use this channel to host videos taken in their research for easy access.  The videos on this channel are largely raw footage and are far less polished than the associated papers.