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