Reflection on Post-Production

Post-production has definitely been the most successful stage of this project. I revamped my content, figured out the podcast genre and gained some comfort working there, and (hopefully) created a successful project. At least, I feel good about it and I'm actually more proud than nervous, which is definitely the reverse of how I felt after Project 1. So yay for that!

1. Oh, man, I feel like just about everything went right concerning my own project! Even though I actually sort of maybe deleted the entirety of my project on Tuesday and reconstructed everything, I think the content that I produced under pressure and once I was truly comfortable recording audio was worlds better than the original content. Everything done in class only further helped me understand what to do and led to a more successful editing process. I mean, just listen to my editorial reports, and I think you'll see what I mean. I also think the inclusion of quotes and audio really helped me to hammer in the form. It's not perfectly professional, but I think it's a really good podcast.
2. What actually kinda pissed me off was the way peer review happened this week. I know we all agreed on the deadline being structured this way, but it led to peer review happening at a very late stage in the drafting process. For example, I didn't get any peer review back on my project until today at 3pm, after I had already turned in my draft. I tried to get my peer review done yesterday so there would be at least some hope of my review going to good use, but I ended up feeling nervous and going back to my own project after only doing one of the two peer reviews. Having the peer review deadline equal to the project deadline leads to distraction from our own projects during crunch time for editing and tweaking, and causes peer review to be submitted only after projects are turned in or close to it, which may not be soon enough. That's just my two cents, though.
3. I think it's hard to answer this question, since next week is the start of a completely new project. But I mean, now that I'm feeling confident in this project, maybe I'll be a little more encouraged to get a good start on this next one! I'm also now anticipating feeing the struggle of an unfamiliar genre, so I can factor that in to my work for next week and hopefully do some research to begin familiarizing myself in the genre earlier on to prevent some of that struggle and get good content from the beginning and I'm sorry this was such a run-on sentence but Mr. Bottai said he doesn't care about grammar in these and I don't know I kinda ran with it. Sorry.
4. Like I mentioned, I'm feeling very confident about the project. I'm worried about how harshly I'll be graded, because I don't think my project was so incredible that it couldn't possibly be wrecked by the rubric. But that's probably a nervous feeling I'll always get, no matter how stellar my project is. I really do think I produced a good project, better than my Project 1, and I will be anticipating finding out how I measured up!

Editorial Report 9B

So now we've got a comparison between my first feeble attempt at body text and an actually effective attempt that was turned in as part of my final Project 2. From that first feeble attempt, I'm only comparing the second half, the part about the introductions from 1:06 to the end. This is because if I compared the whole thing, my re-worked version would have exceeded the 2 minute limit.

1. In this improved version, I actually included a direct quote from the paper as an example, rather than vaguely discussing element without showing the listener exactly what I was talking about. This makes my content stronger, as I have specific evidence to back up my claims. Content-wise, I also added the voice of Dr. Rebecca Mosher, who gives her thoughts on how even scientists might need more information and proof of credibility. Funny, it's rhetoric within rhetoric because adding her thoughts on credibility boosts my credibility. But the addition of these two elements (and a bit more elaboration on what credibility does for a reader) does wonders for improving the effectiveness of my content. I also added closing thoughts so that the thought doesn't just cut off and end without closure.
2. As for form, similar things can be applied here. I think I sound much more appealing and less fake in the re-worked version. This improves the delivery of my content within the genre and makes the project sound more interesting. I also integrated audio from one of my interviews, which definitely fits within a podcast genre and improves my project. A monologue of just me talking for ten minutes would be boring, so adding this new voice re-engages the listener. There's also a sound effect clipped to the end of it (that isn't included in this snippet, so I apologize that acts as a transition into the next genre, which is the addition of another effective podcast convention.

Editorial Report 9A

Here comes a comparison between the introduction from my rough draft and the final introduction that was turned in with my podcast!

1. So to be completely honest, I canned the whole first draft and started fresh. I didn't like where the project was going, and the content I was producing while I wasn't comfortable in the genre wasn't really very good content. So while main ideas stayed the same, I elaborated more on why the subject was important, to make sure that my content would be interesting for individuals from any background. I also included general information about genre in the introduction (not included in the posted snippet because I forgot that the track that included that content was also part of the intro), but saved the identification of each genre until I actually talk about it in the body. I also added music to the intro, which may be more of a form thing because it's a convention, but it also added content, so I'm talking about it here too. I think these things fit much more with what was expected from the rubric, and it seems like a much more cohesive introduction that actually leads to something that matters.
2.  As form goes, I think I spoke much more conversationally in the re-worked version, which is definitely a podcast convention. No one wants to hear someone yammering on for ten minutes reading a boring script, so my voice was improved by my new approach of not reading directly from a script but adapting bullet points into natural sentences. I also added the intro music as mentioned above, as well as sound effects to paint a mental picture that hopefully intrigues the listener. I think these changes to form made my podcast much more digestable. When I listened to the original, I wanted to punch myself in the face for putting peer reviewers through that. It just wasn't very appealing as a podcast compared to the final version, from what I can tell.

Peer Review 9B

I took a listen to Olivia's podcast, which lives here. Her podcast is titled "The RSS Podcast" or "The Rhetorical Strategies and Situations Podcast." (Or something like this, she didn't type it out anywhere to be seen) I performed a content recommendation for her podcast, focusing on the idea of expanding thoughts and including the importance of each point she makes.


I think my comment will help make her paper better because a few ideas seemed under-developed, and the podcast would be a bit more meaningful if she delved in just a little further. Also, the lack of explanation on why certain things are important leaves me as a listener wondering why I should care about any of it. I mean, I don't spend free time looking through pharmaceutical journals, so it's a little difficult for me to take interest. I think adding a little focus on why it's important or interesting throughout the podcast, while still keeping the focus on rhetoric, is a definite must.


I didn't incorporate anything from Student's Guide (I might have unintentionally, that would be cool), because I thought it would be more useful at this point in the process to use the grading rubric as a basis for my review. I think pointing out a major recurring point that could be improved (this is the lack of emphasis on importance of the subject) was a good move because the rubric says multiple times to include thoughts on why it matters and things. Getting close to the submission deadline, I think using something that very strictly defines and affects her grade was the way to go, and this was the most glaring issue I could see so that's what I did.


I am absolutely so impressed with how comfortable Olivia sounds on the mic, and how much control she has over her tone and voice. It doesn't sound like she's reading from a script, but it also doesn't sound like she's winging it and messing up. Podcasts are supposed to sound more like conversations than essays read aloud, and she absolutely nails this convention! If only I could be less awkward and pull that off a little more easily.

Peer Review 9A

I peer reviewed Payton Leahy's project entitled "Rhetorical Investigation into Physiological Genres". For Payton I performed a copy-editing suggestion based on her use of repeated phrases (as well as commenting directly on the draft about other things that could be re-worded for the sake of improvement).


I think my review will help because she mentioned in a comment at the beginning of her document that she thinks her draft is boring and she doesn't know how to make it more readable. I think my recommendation helps because throughout the draft, there were places where something could be re-worded to sound more exciting and add variety. This helps to address her concern.


I really liked Payton's control of the genre conventions and the way she focus on rhetoric almost the entire time. These are both things I could definitely improve on myself.

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

Wheeeeeew. It's been quite the time getting any semblance of a draft up here and uploaded. But here it is, ladies and gents!

1. My field of study is biology, so the majority of texts are extremely logic-based. Writing also follows a very standard pattern and authors adhere to the conventions VERY rigidly. While this does make an analysis a little easier as I'm confident that my examples represent the majority, it's also true that it's hard to find things to say, so I hope these things are okay.
2. There are issues. Definitely. I still have genre examples to add, because my draft as it stands only discusses the primary examples in each genre. I figure, though, with spring break I can get away with carrying on a little production at the same time as global revision. I also still have all the fun stuff (sound effects, transitions, clips from interviews) to add in. This will also be done. I also want to know if my analyses are in-depth enough. I want to know if you're picking up what I'm putting down.
3.  I think my biggest strength is that I'm getting the point of the project. I find isolated examples of a certain rhetorical strategy and explain them clearly. If I'm wrong and it really isn't very clear, then please make me aware. But that's currently my biggest strength. Possibly my only one. Will add if I think of anything else. I just think it's very "work-in-progress"-y, and that prevents me from feeling super confident.

Reflection on Project 2 Production

Oh, boy. The universe is testing me now. My computer has crashed about twenty times today. I have a really shitty computer with like 20gb of space, and of course because that's such an unreasonable amount I have been operating with low disk space for months. So it's been a little rough trying to carry out production with a crappy computer. I also have much more, definitely, to add to my draft. But it's a work in progress and despite having gotten behind, I still feel pretty good about the project for the most part.

1. Things that went right - I figured out what to say and how to say it! At first I was worried I wouldn't be able to explain myself very eloquently, but it seems like I'm having a good amount of luck with that. This can be seen in the way I speak  in my first two pieces of content (links in previous two blog posts) I feel that I'm definitely getting the hang of the project and I'm achieving the purpose, and it feels good.
2. Well the shitty computer business sort of put a damper on things. Other than that, I also had some struggles with figuring out Audacity and working in the unfamiliar genre. Evidence includes all of the recorded outtakes that you never get to hear of me stumbling over words, or forgetting to hit record, or hitting record but for some reason the mic still doesn't pick you up, or it acts like it picks you up because it shows your sound waves but you can't hear a thing, and so on.
3. I think next week could only be better. While I'll still be adding to my draft as well as editing, the bulk of the stress will be over. And, peer review is the absolute best! It's some of my favorite work to do because both parties get something substantial out of it. My shitty computer should be able to handle a little peer review, too.
4. Overall, I'm feeling a little worried at this point. Not being able to post a full draft tonight has me feeling a little bit stressed. But it's out of my control. I tried so hard to catch up, but I didn't want to make some half-assed draft that wouldn't have included much usable content, so I still took it slowly in creating something good, and it's just not ready. I'll post tomorrow, though, and it will be something.

#perpetuallybehind.

Production Report (8b)

By clicking here, you can see the second piece of content I produced for my rhetorical analysis - the two major rhetorical strategies in the first genre example.




 Below is the part of my outline from which that lovely audio is adapted! And below that are a few pieces of reflection on the production of this content piece.

 

Genre #1: The Research Paper

• Main idea: Analyze the rhetoric in a research paper
• The most comfortable and common genre in science
• Purpose is to explain the research that was conducted and the effect it has on our knowledge of biology
• Audience ranges from amateur students to tenure professors in the field - because of this papers are often complex but still understandable by the majority of the audience (insert Dr. Mosher comment on how communication doesn’t mean anything if her audience doesn’t understand)
• Example #1: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00410.x/pdf
• Rhetorical concept: Logic (Organization of ideas)
• Major Piece of Evidence: The structure of the paper (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)
• The evidence proves: This is an author’s way of taking difficult concepts or complex research and formatting it in a logical and clear way. This appeals to a reader’s expectation of logic within scientific writing.
• It’s important because: A quick scan allows the reader to get an understanding of what’s ahead in the paper, inclining him/her to read the paper in its entirety. The ideas flow clearly and chronologically; first the motivation for the research and the question to be answered, then a description of the research that was conducted, then the results, then what the results mean. This is a very appealing format for the audience. Those who are familiar with the genre are able to easily find the section(s) of interest, and those who aren’t can follow along fairly easily.
• Rhetorical concept: Credibility (referring to credible sources)
• Major piece of evidence: the numerous in-text citations in the introduction.
• The evidence proves: The author establishes credibility by indicating all the other people that support what he/she is saying, or saying the same things.
• It’s important because: The audience may not have a lot of background info on the topic, and it’s important that they are able to trust the paper as a credible source. The audience is more inclined to buy into your research and learn more about it when they are able to trust you as a scientist. If a scientist has bad cred, they can kiss their career goodbye. So establishing credibility with every audience is absolutely always necessary.

1. To create this content, I constructed a script using conversational language. Podcasts are more easily swallowed when they feel conversational. I didn't take the outline and chronologically transform each point into audio, but I tried to bring up the major piece of evidence, state what the rhetorical concept was, and then sort of explain what the evidence proves in conjunction with the reasons why it's important. Other than having to reword a few things, It felt like the content flowed pretty naturally, so I went with that. Again, I've marked in the transcript where I want to include sound effects and things of the like that also fit the podcast genre.
2. Again, the biggest bumps in the road came from the still somewhat unfamiliar Audacity software. I had one really good take that got lost because my mic didn't pick me up at all. That was frustrating, but you move on from these things. Nothing really came to me as far as creative breakthroughs. But I think my raw content has a lot of potential!

Production Report (8a)

By clicking here, you can see the first piece of content I produced for my rhetorical analysis - the introduction. This felt like the easiest place to start, so I dove right in.




Below is the part of my outline from which that lovely audio is adapted! And below that are a few pieces of reflection on the production of this content piece.

Introduction:

• Main idea: Writing is an integral part of discovering new things in science (biology), and understanding the ways and contexts in which writing is composed facilitates gaining something out of research. (Be exciting)
• The genres
• Scientific Paper
• Review Paper
• Presentation/Lecture?
• Rhetoric as an integral and somewhat innate part of the scientific writing process
• Audience is the part of the rhetorical situation that most drastically shapes writing and communication in biology, no matter the genre.
• Purpose varies depending on the genre

• Rhetorical strategies: Logic and credibility are crucial, emotion is essentially nonexistent no matter the genre (possibly will delete, too in depth for intro)

1. To create this content, I constructed a script using conversational language. I took the points from my outline and attempted to write interesting and intriguing sentences that would lead the listener into my podcast and hook their attention. In podcasts, it's conventional for the speaker to speak as if they are talking to someone, and this influenced the way I authored the script. I also made mental notes of places where I want to split the raw audio to insert a sound affect - one of these will be at the very beginning before my voice is heard. Though they aren't there yet, there are spots in the raw audio saved for employment of these conventions.
2. The biggest hiccup was learning how to navigate and work in Audacity. I spent a good ten minutes trying to figure out how to edit my audio track, and why it wasn't working. But once I figured out my problem (who knew you can't delete a segment when the track is paused rather than stopped? I didn't.), producing the intro was pretty much smooth sailing. When I started writing the script, I definitely changed a lot of what I was originally gonna say. My outline is a little too formal and non-conversational, and it goes into too much detail. I decided to save most of that detail about rhetoric for later and instead just briefly overviewed what rhetoric is. I've also gotten rid of the first genre for now, as I've yet to obtain many examples. I'll add it in throughout the week if I decide I don't have enough with the other two.

Reflection on Project 2 Pre-Production (Deadline 7)

This week's process work was definitely much more helpful than harmful to the construction of my project. I'm a little worried about keeping up (now that I've finally caught up holy shit that was rough) but at the very least I know where I stand now.

1. I think the biggest success was completing my content outline. Being forced to do this made it easier to figure out how to efficiently and logically structure my project. I was nervous because these things weren't readily occurring as epiphanies to me. But now that I sat down and budgeted everything out, I'm going into production a bit more confidently.
2. My biggest struggle this week was things essentially out of my control. The biggest one was catching up (both in this class and in others) from getting behind. I hate being so behind, which causes me to dread the catching up, which causes me to fall further behind. It's a vicious cycle. So pretty much I didn't touch this deadline until today. That's why I'm barely posting this in time. I hate when I do this crap. But it's better now.
3. If next week is anything like this week then shit I give up now. But what I'm going for is to improve my tactics based on this week's difficulty and avoid falling back into this cycle. With both the outline and the schedule in my favor, I should be able to get my shit together and have a successful production week.
4. I'm feeling pretty neutral about the project. Well, I'm probably a bit more on the positive side. I'll feel better once I successfully generate some audio and really start pulling it together. But while it's looming over me like it is, it's hard to be incredibly gung-ho about it.

Production Schedule

Creating a production schedule is another new addition to my pre-production routine, one that I think I should keep around. In theory, it should keep me on track and prevent me from having to produce content in a rush at the last minute. (Only time will tell if it will work in practice)


My production schedule can be seen here :)

Content Outline

Creating a content outline has so far been incredibly useful in my Project 2 process work. Being able to get ideas onto paper and visualize how the project will come together is so conducive to producing  the project.
You can view my outline here!

Report on my Interviews

Interviewing was such an incredibly useful way to learn about genres in my field! Both of my interview subjects even claimed that they themselves learned a bit about writing by having to answer questions that they never had considered.

1. Three intriguing and important genres in the field are scientific papers (as an overarching genre), review papers, and oral presentations.
2. In a scientific paper, the purpose is to explain research to a wide audience ranging from colleagues to uneducated students. In a review paper, the purpose is to provide feedback on a scientific paper for the specific few people who authored the scientific paper. An oral presentation unlike the former two genres is done verbally and with slideshows and graphic images in hopes to teach the audience.
3. One of the most difficult things cited by both interviewees is being clear and detailed enough in explanation. Because audiences can range significantly in education or knowledge of background information, scientists have to explain themselves with enough depth and clarity that any audience member will gain something from reading the paper or watching the presentation. It's a matter of battling something arbitrary and non-specific, and this is something that is helped by peer review.
4. Both interviewers also cited being able to talk to other professionals as the most exciting form of communication in their field. While it's enriching and rewarding to teach and explain, it's a whole other form of excitement to learn about someone else's work and to take a break from treading on ice when trying to explain things. Other professionals often understand the work with ease, so it takes away a chunk of the difficulty.
5. Examples of a scientific paper can be found in literally any scientific journal at a library or in online databases such as Wiley. Journal reviews are a little tougher, as they don't have their own journals and all names are kept confidential. However, some journal articles and papers have the review papers published in addition to the paper itself. Educational presentations are, in essence, school lectures so these can be found daily at the University of Arizona. Otherwise, recordings exist on YouTube, and massively intriguing ones exist in the form of Ted Talks.

From Academia to Social Media

Academic Discourse & Genre

Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Journal

My Discipline

Following is a short FAQ-like chunk of information about the evolutionary biology discipline.

1. Students learn about genetics. They learn how to map genes within chromosomes of many organisms, how to predict the effect of a gene on the outcome of an individual, and how to suppress and help the expression of a gene through epigenetics. They also study genetic diseases and conditions and research to find cures or treatments. In short, there are many things an evolutionary biologist can do.
2. Many people with degrees in biology with any sort of emphasis on evolution go on to work in industry or academia as researchers or professors. Some go into specific areas like genetic counseling, but the majority are in academia of some sort, researching about genes and evolution and teaching to eager undergrads.
3. My junior year in high school, I took an Advanced Biology class that discussed genes and evolution for about a month, and it was my absolute favorite part of the class (and possibly my entire high school curriculum). Because of this, it was easy to make the decision to study the field in college.
4. I'm struggling to find specific leaders that are still active in 2016. All I can think of is the famous Charles Darwin who has been dead for forever, but contributed so much to our understanding of evolution by natural selection. Another dead leader is Stephen Jay Gould, who did so much in the way of evolutionary theory and won so many awards and was easily the leader when he was alive. I'll come back and add to this if I can think of anything else, but I don't think this is the most crucial process work to my project.
5. Journal of Evolutionary Biology is incredibly influential in the field of evolutionary biology. Two others would be Trends in ecology and evolution and Molecular biology and evolution.

My Interviewees on Social Media

Social media is home to a proliferous amount of information and insight on people and what they do. Unfortunately, my cyber hunt for the dirt on my interviewees did not amount to much.


Dr. Anna Dornhaus had a profile on Facebook, (but it was private) Twitter, (which only had one tweet about how she couldn't figure out what Twitter is good for) and LinkedIn (which I couldn't figure out how to navigate so I didn't get much out of that). Needless to say, her social media presence/persona  was essentially nonexistent.


Dr. Rebecca Mosher had a Facebook account (which was also private) a LinkedIn account, and a Twitter account that was comparatively, but not incredibly, more active than Dr. Dornhaus's. She posts on Twitter mostly about her colleague's papers and things that pertain to epigenetics and evolutionary biology. There's a slightly greater feel of her voice and personality on Twitter, because she's able to throw in a little more about why things are important or what issues (gender representation in science, for a recent example) mean a lot to her. Her professional work is very impersonal and objective, while her Twitter self is a little more humanly and personal. For example, this tweet highlights her scientific interests as well as her care for friends and family. However, both her writing and her tweeting indicate her interest in genetics and evolutionary biology very clearly.