In this blog post I will be addressing you, the reader. I know that you are reading this to find out more information about my podcast. You know what you want and you have your own ideas about what a podcast should have.
This project has been very informative to me, ironically I've found it to be very challenging to limit myself to the specific project topic that we are talking about. I have learned much about the civil engineering field and I hope that you as the viewer can see some of that displayed in the little bit of the interviews that I present in the podcast. Anyone reviewing this project should know that this is the very first podcast that I've ever created so it can be expected to be a little rough.
Some of the major weaknesses of this podcast are the large amounts of dead space between words occasionally as well as a large number of umms. There is also potentially an issue with the organization of the podcast, I may have gotten out of organization occasionally because of the free flowing nature that I tried to institute in this podcast. If there is an organization issue, I fear that it could compromise the entire project. Please if your are a reviewer, let me know if you think any of these issues are a major problem or if there are issues that I am not aware of.
The project also had some strengths. I was able to effectively incorporate the interviews with the civil engineers that I talked to as part of my genre descriptions. I think that this gives some credibility to my made up genres because my interviewees also described the same genre ideas. I also think that I was able to emphasize and focus on the audience very adequately.
Without further ado, here is my rough cut of project 2.
Hey Jason. I focused on content when looking at your podcast. The focus on audience in the talk with Dr. Wu did was explained very well. The second interview did a great job of explaining the project report genre and describing what is in it. There was a lot of specific detail, which was what was asked in the rubric. Also, the differentiation between the technical and public was very helpful. Your explanation of logical and emotional strategies was concise but done well for the short time allotted for the podcast. I was wondering about you bringing up secondary research and other genre examples, which you did bring in at the end, and you tied in audience well. Your organization of this podcast was done very well, and your integration of guest speakers was done very well. Also, tying everything into communication was a very good idea. Overall, it seems that your podcast did a great job in regards to content and following the rubric.
ReplyDeleteYour podcast thoroughly communicates its content but could be altered to better engage and inform the listener.
ReplyDeleteThe pacing of the podcast is slow throughout. While this lets the listener keep up in the technical sections, it makes the project drag a little in other parts. The easiest way to improve this would be to replace some of the more wordy sentences with more brief and precise versions. Increasing the actual words per minute in sections like the interviewee introduction section could also help.
I felt like some sections could use less info. For example, I didn’t need quite so much information on the interviewees, though you did a good job establishing them as interesting characters.
It would be nice if you could break up the longer sections. Something as simple as well placed sound effects can help maintain attention. Though the interviews were interesting, they could use some editing along these lines. Something like breaking them up with your explanation would help.
Good luck on your final draft,
-A.J.
P.s. On a technical note, The vocal volume was way to quiet for me to hear, especially the interviews.
Also, I think that mr. Bottai is going to want you to convert this into an mp3, mp4 or other standard format. (He wanted me to convert mine from .wav)
DeleteHey Jason,
ReplyDeleteI think your sources are very well introduced, and you focused exactly on what you needed to within the interviews as well. I loved how you took the time to list the qualifications for your interviewees, and I found it very beneficial for your own credibility in the project. The biggest thing that I would go back and try fix is the amount of space between the words and the filler words as you mentioned, as I believe it really slows down the pace of the podcast. I think adding in other sounds as well other than just pure talking may help this as well, to introduce some more variety into the project. But I thought the overall content was very informative and definitely good on that end.