Peer Review 9b

             This blogpost is intended to be a peer review for Shauna Bratton's Quick Reference Guide for Project 2.

Author: Shauna Bratton

Link to Project: Open Post to Peer Reviewers

             For this peer review, I checked out Shauna Bratton's Quick Reference Guide about how important Physiology is to everyone and how they can apply it to their lives. Shauna did an amazing job of researching her topic and being very thorough with her explanations. I feel as though her information would be great for a scientific poster, however, it does seem a little lengthy to be a Quick Reference Guide. I hate to say that she needs to cut down on information, just because she did such a great job of being thorough, but the way it is now does not really reflect the style of a QRG. In addition, she could try to make the QRG a little more visually appealing by using different fonts and/or colors throughout the QRG. She has a really solid draft and I'm sure she will pull through for her final version.

             

Peer Review 9a

           This blog serves as a peer review for Nicholas Hoover's Quick Reference Guide for Project 2.


Author: Nicholas Hoover

Title & Link to Project: Writing in Linguistics

           For this peer review, I made a form suggestion for Nicholas Hoover's Quick Reference Guide for Project 2. He had a really solid draft, it had all the conventions of a QRG, there were just a few things that he could fix. A few suggestions that I have are creating more white space and/or maybe cut down on the writing. It is supposed to be something that people reference quickly, and the sections should be short and concise. If there is no spacing in between sections, the QRG tends to look heavy and very wordy, which will be a big turnoff to his audience. Also keeping the information concise will keep the reader engaged in the project. Overall, the information is great, he just needs to work on making it an easier read for his audience. My comment for Hoover's blogpost can be found at the link above.

Reflection on Post Production

            This blog serves as a reflection on the post production for my Project 2 podcast.

What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

            I would say that my biggest success for this week was learning how to properly utilize Audacity. I had some previous experience with it from high school, but I didn't have to use it to the same extent as I did for this project. It took me a little while to figure out how it works, and after watching multiple videos and consulting a handful of friends, I finally figured out all the tricks I needed to pull of my podcast.

What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

            During this week's process work, I really found it hard to get myself to really change the content of my outline. I knew it needed some heavy revisions, but I felt like if I started to change a lot of things, it would not end up being the same project that I had intended it on being. I started off by cleaning up my entire podcast script, fixing grammatical errors, making sentences flow better so it comes off more fluid when I was recording. I took out some extraneous information and added in some details, enough to where I was fairly happy with the script. I mentioned in my previous blogs that I was totally going to revamp the entire script, but after doing some tweaking, I realized I had a fairly decent draft to work off of for my final.

How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

        

    I think it's gonna be okay. Now that this project is over and we are moving into the next one, I will definitely use the skills I attained from audacity, in order to create my video essay. I just have to make sure I keep coming up with solid drafts, that way it makes the revision process and final product 10x better than it would be if I had not created a draft with some substance.

How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

            I actually feel pretty good about how my podcast turned out. I was really overwhelmed that I wouldn't get a script to where my audience would be engaged, but I had people listen to it (and made them be brutally honest) and they said I did a good job at following the conventions of a podcast and breaking up sections so they would not carry on for too long. I definitely could improve the podcast to something amazing, if I had a little more time after the revision process, but I honestly am proud of what I made and think I covered all the bases.

Editorial Report 9b

This blogpost was intended to analyze the editing process of different sections of my podcast.

Link to Rough Cut for my Interviewees Discussed found here.

Revised transcript for Intro:

            "Before I dive into an analysis of these different genres, it is probably best to provide some additional information about my interviewees and how they utilize these different forms of writing. My first interviewee was Dr. Jerel Slaughter who is the department head of Management and Organizations and a Robbins Professor of Management. He said that roughly 50% of his time is dedicated to administrative purposes and running the department, while the other 50% is spent on teaching and research. Slaughter is constantly switching between his two professions at the university of Arizona, meaning that he needs a seamless form of communication between himself and his peers. He revealed that email is his favorite mode of communication , and medium to write in. It is quick, simple, and the most efficient way for him to not only communicate with his peers, but to teach his students. He notes that for his Applied Topics in Bargaining and Negotiation class, the class is more discussion based and the students will usually read articles supplied by Slaughter and talk about them during class rather than have him lecture. For this reason, Slaughter really only needs email to update his students on what articles to read. Occasionally, Slaughter will post a powerpoint to teach his students, but he would rather have the students engage with one another and learn with a more interactive environment. Another aspect of Slaughter’s career is his research. He is constantly working on research projects, along with teaching and running his department. His publications play a huge role in both the professional and academic aspects of his life.

            The second interview was held with Dr. Allison Gabriel, a professor of Organizational Behavior in the Eller College of Management. Gabriel has her doctorates in Industrial-Organizational Psychology and has brought her talents to the university of Arizona with the intention of researching more and teaching about emotions at work, motivation, employee well being, and interactions amongst professionals. A majority of Gabriel’s time is spent conducting research and working with students to help kickstart their own research. Gabriel notes that since she teaches in a large lecture hall, it really limits what she can do in class and she doesn’t get a chance to really interact with her students. Because of this her go-to writing and presentation platform is a Powerpoint. It is the simplest way for her to convey information to her students, solely for the fact that she doesn't get the close interaction that she would if her class was significantly smaller. For students who like to go a step further and engage in Gabriel’s research, she encourages them to follow her on twitter where she is becoming more active. Gabriel realizes that the up-and-coming generations are all about social media so she created her own account in hopes of bridging relationships with her students and other colleagues. She is aware that this method is a little unorthodox but is a firm believer that it will catch on eventually. In addition, much like Slaughter, Gabriel uses her research as a tool to communicate and teach her students and fellow colleagues. Their published articles, as well as the hundreds of thousands of other ones out there, allow them to teach students about the importance of research and to help spark ideas for even more research."

How did the content change when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

Much like the revision process for my Intro in the previous blog, not too much had changed for the content in this section that covered the background info to my interviewees. I know it seems a little lengthy, but not only did I include background information on the professionals, to give the audience a better sense of who I was talking about, but I went on to talk about the different types of writing genres that they utilize on a daily basis. Some of the background information such as the department they work in and what they do, was initially placed in the introduction, but I moved it to this section only. I fixed up some grammar errors and made the sentence structure flow better. I also added sound effects and an interview snippet from Dr. Gabriel herself.

How did the form change when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

I think the re-edited version is way easier on the ear than the rough cut. The information all flows in an orderly fashion, and the fact that I discussed the different genres used by the different interviewees, gives the audience a better feel of the types of people that use those writing genres and the targeted audience. In my rough cut I had absolutely no sound effects at all, but for the edited version, I included transition noises, background sounds to emphasize certain parts of what was saying, and I even incorporated some of my interview with Dr. Gabriel. As you can see from above, this section was very dense with information, but I think I was able to get a solid hold on making it interesting for the audience. I definitely think it is "less of a drag" to listen to than it had been initially.

Editorial Report 9a

            This blogpost was intended to analyze the editing process of different sections of my podcast.

Link to Rough Cut Intro found here.

Revised transcript for Intro:

            "Hi, PJ Noghrehchi here... freshman at the University of Arizona Honors college studying Pre-Business and Pre-Health. This is a podcast designed for my English 109 Honors course with the intention of exploring the different types of writing genres used by professionals in my major. For this project I interviewed two professionals from the Eller College of Management, both in the Department of Management and Organizations. The genre examples that I have decided to explore are Twitter, Email, Powerpoint, as well as, scholarly articles. Although each of these writing styles are vastly different from each each other. They each play an important role in shaping the academic and professional environment for those in business management."

How did the content change when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

Content-wise, I took out information about the different professors because I realized I was reiterating all of it in later sections of my podcast. I decided to give my intro a cleaner and professional tone to it. I did this by removing extraneous words and taking out examples of my writing genres. I took the advice from Professor Bottai, that you want to make your podcast sound credible, and your audience will determine this within the first 15 seconds. I feel like I accomplished this by properly introducing myself and explaining what the project is for and why it is important. Before I edited it, I included some of these features, but I wasn't completely satisfied with how it came out.

How did the form change when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

The form changed by making my podcast start of strong and sound professional, with the intention of keeping the audience engaged. It provided the credibility I needed to make the audience "trust" what I had to say and it was the perfect length, not short enough to where an adequate amount of info was provided, and not too long to where I lost the conventions of a decent introduction. It may have been beneficial to include the names of my interviewees in the intro (like I initially had) but this way it keeps the readers interested in listening more to see who I interviewed. I wouldn't say that my edited version is drastically different, but it was cleaned up and polished nicely.

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

            This blogpost was intended to provide the Rough Cut production for Project 2. A link to my podcast is provided below so my peers can give me feedback during the peer review process.

Audience Question: What are you anticipating the post-production process to be like, based on what you accomplished during the production phase?

Author Response

The link to my rough cut podcast for Project 2 can be found here for all viewers with a University of Arizona email. When I say this is a rough cut of Project 2, I really mean it is a rough cut. The transitions are choppy and there are multiple times when I mess up while reading my script for the podcast. I have yet to include additional sound effects, edit the content discussed in the podcast, and I intend to include snippets of the interview into the podcast. My rough draft is around 10 minutes long, but that time frame will change as I continue to edit my script and add other sound effects and what not to my project. I sort of merged my conclusion with my last body section, so I need to go back in and revise, maybe do a comparison of all the genres against each other. I do, however, believe that my draft is strong when it comes to content. I know there is a lot of work to do from here, but I hope I am in the right direction. I hope those who peer review me won't hold back and will provide me with good constructive criticism that I can utilize in my editing phase. I will have to do some major revamping for my post-production, but I intend on using my flights during this break to edit and/or create new content for this project.

Reflection on Production

           This blogpost is meant to discuss the process of my production of a rough cut for Project 2.

Audience QuestionsWhat were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

Author Response

The production week for this first drat for Project 2 was quite hectic. It was happening during midterms week so I tried to throw something together as best as I could so I feel like I have less to work with, contrary to where I was at during this same stage for Project 1. I have a small background with Audacity, but I haven't used it in over a year so I had to reteach myself how to do simple things such as trimming and merging audio. It actually took me quite a while and I got a little frustrated but I was able to figure it out. I spent a lot of time creating my script, but I know that it still needs improvement.

I sort of held back on things I wanted to say because I felt like it would be long, and my podcast ended up being a rough 10 minutes. This is good because it gives me room to work around and edit different aspects of the content I provided, and I don't have to worry about it being too short.

I feel like the next week will be a little rough, just for the fact that I want to heavily edit my script and make it all flow better and add some more information. I personally am not happy with my script yet, so I feel like once I get that under control, the rest will just fall into place.

I still need to add sound effects and include snippets of the interview, but I intend on adding that last. I believe that I'll be re-recording the entire thing, so that is a little overwhelming, but not that I am more comfortable with Audacity, and I have something to work with I don't think it will end up being too bad. Just like Project 1, I think at some point everything will work itself out, I hope to reach that point once I get a solid script.

Production 8b

This blogpost is intended to discuss a certain section of my Content Outline, and provide a rough example of it from our first draft. This blogpost differs from the one before, because it analyzes a different section of the content outline. A link to the rough example will be provided below to those with a University of Arizona Email.

The following is from my Content Outline.

Main Idea for Each Section + Evidence +Importance of Evidence

           For the first body section of my podcast, I'd really like to give my audience a sense of my two interviewees as a whole, talking about their professional and academic lives and discuss their research and personal preferences for writing genres. The two major pieces of evidence that I will use for the first section of my podcast are the interviews that took place (including snippets here and there) as well as their Linkinedin/social media.The use of the interviews and the Linkedin profiles to create the first section of my podcast is to give the reader first-hand insight into the two professionals that I interviewed. Since I will be including actual snippets of the interview, the audience gets a better sense of their personality and the Linkedin information gives them a factual background.

*The link to the Outline Item for my Intro can be found here*

Adaptation of Outline Item

How did you decide to use form to present your content in the raw material you’ve shared here? How did the conventions of your chosen genre influence your choices?

  For this section I really tried to give an idea of the interviewee as a whole. I realized halfway through writing my script that I was talking a lot about them rather than my genre at hand, so I had to cut down on some material. I didn't include information of their LinkedIn profiles as I said I would, but I feel like I could switch up this section a bit. I noticed that I started to discuss the genres inside of the section dedicated to the interviewees. In a way I feel like I did the opposite of what I was avoiding; I thought I would end up talking too much about the interviewees and ended up talking about the genres more. This section will definitely be edited and I hope to give my audience a better feel of the professional, that way they can understand their sue of certain genres. I can definitely cut down on this section, give a better and clear explanation of the interviewees and their backgrounds, and explain the genres later.

How did the production of this raw material go? What kinds of any hiccups, challenges, successes, creative epiphanies, etc. occurred during the process?

Like I said in the question above, I started to steer away from my intended goal for this certain section. It was meant to give a run down of the professionals and some background info, as well as mentioning the genres used. I feel like I kind of mixed the interview section with my other two body sections...which resulted in me not even having my intended third body section. I definitely have the information I need, and I should make more use of the interviews that took place, because I don't think I utilized them to their fullest potential. In the end, like I've said before, this is just a reflection of the script that I had. I am not good at talking as I go because I would most likely repeat myself or make numerous mistakes; making the editing process harder than it needs to be. I'm glad I have something to work with and that I can use this rough cut to heavily improve my next draft, but I have a lot ahead of me.

Production 8a

This blogpost is intended to discuss a certain section of my Content Outline, and provide a rough example of it from our first draft. A link to the rough example will be provided below to those with a University of Arizona Email.

The following is from my Content Outline.

An Opening Section

           For the opening section I want to introduce what is going to be discussed in the podcast and give some background information on the two professionals that I had interviewed for this project. After explaining why I chose these professionals, I’ll mention the main genre examples that I will be discussing in the podcast.

*The link to the Outline Item for my Intro can be found here*

Adaptation of Outline Item

How did you decide to use form to present your content in the raw material you’ve shared here? How did the conventions of your chosen genre influence your choices?

  The intro to any project is the most crucial part of the entire thing because it sets the scene for the audience, and determines whether or not the audience member will stay engaged or move on to something else. For this introduction, I tried to cover all the bases of my project, giving a slight taste of what is to come, without revealing too much. Instead of just diving into the project, I decided to try and make it professional by introducing myself and the project, and then diving into what the project is and what I decided to research.

How did the production of this raw material go? What kinds of any hiccups, challenges, successes, creative epiphanies, etc. occurred during the process?

Since this was the first part that I recorded, it was a little challenging trying to figure out what to do or how to speak. I had to relearn audacity first and make sure I was in the right setting so I would not get any extraneous noise. I feel like I have something solid to work with in my intro but it could definitely be altered to something more engaging. I realized afterwards that I should include why I chose these genres, or the certain professors, rather than just saying it was for a project. Like Professor Bottai said in class, stating why you chose something gives it more credibility and helps make the audience trust what you are saying. Overall, perfecting my script would be my main concern right now, and the little things can be fixed along the way.

Reflection on Pre-Production Week

            This post is intended to just give some personal feedback on Pre-Production week and how it went.

What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

  The parts of my pre-production week that were most successful would probably be the interviews that took place. It was a long process trying to get professors to respond and I had gone through 3 rounds of emailing different professors before I got a response. The professionals that I did end up with, however, provided me with great information and were really interested in the work we are doing. So I'd say the interviews were the best part.

What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

I would say just being distracted in general this past week (after my interviews) because I had/still have a lot of stuff going on in other classes. When I finally finished conducting my interviews I kind of slacked off because I was putting more time into my other classes. I feel like I am a little behind on production week, seeing as though I just created my content outline fairly recently.

How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

I don't think this next week will be too bad. I still will have to juggle this project with trying to study for other classes, but I think I'll be able to pull something off. I guess I am pretty confident and not too worried about it because I plan on working on my podcast on my long flights during spring break. All that alone time will most likely keep me focused and do some good fine-tuning to my project.

How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

As mentioned before, I do feel a little overwhelmed at this point, but I think I have it under control. It was really helpful that Professor Bottai shifted the dates for a lot of our due dates, because I personally don't think I would have been able to pull off all the work when my interviews were scheduled so late. I think if I put more work into the editing stage -even if my rough draft is very rough- then I will be just fine.

Production Schedule

             This blogpost was intended to give a rough outline of my productions schedule and what I have left to do for Project 2.

The following is a list of tasks that need to be done (or are already completed) for Project 2. They include the task, a location, a time, resources required, and changes made after completion.

• Create interview questions/Conducts interviews
• Mclelland Hall
• Monday 2-2:30 p.m.     &     Wednesday 10-10:30 a.m.
• Laptop for recording interviews and phone to have list of questions
• Complete: 3/2/16
• Create Outline for project before creating podcast
• Home
• 3/5/16-3/7/16
• Laptop
• Complete: 3/7/16
• Go through interviews again and listen for key points to help write a script
• Home
• 3/8/16-3/9/16
• Laptop- Google Docs
• Complete: TBD
• Create a Script
• Home/Library
• 3/9/16-3/10/16
• Google Docs (Laptop)
• Complete: TBD
• Record Rough Draft
• Home
• 3/10/16-3/11/16
• Laptop
• Complete: TBD
• Do rough editing before peer review
• Home/Library
• 3/11/16-3/12/16
• Laptop
• Complete: TBD

Content Outline

              This post is intended to provide a content outline for my Project 2 Podcast in hopes that I can stay on a general schedule to create my project in an effective manner.

Alexis_Fotas. "To Do List Do List Task Pens" 5/7/2015 via Pixabay.
CC0 Public Domain License.

 Audience Question: How are you going to organize your project?

An Opening Section 

  For the opening section I want to introduce what is going to be discussed in the podcast and give some background information on the two professionals that I had interviewed for this project.

At Least 3 Main Body Sections 

• Talk about the interviews that took place.
• Explain the significance/differences/similarities of the different genres they all use.
• Tie everything together in an organized fashion, emphasizing key concepts

A Closing Section 

  For the closing section I would like to explain why having different genre forms for writing is crucial in a business management profession, and that different writing forms have different effects on the audience. Each sector of business management has its own target audience.

Main Idea for Each Section 

  For the opening and closing sections, I have already given the main idea of what I expect to do with those parts of my podcast. For the first body section of my podcast, I'd really like to give my audience a sense of my two interviewees as a whole, talking about their professional and academic lives and discuss their research and personal preferences for writing genres. I'd then like to transition my podcast into an analysis and/or comparison of the different genres used between my two interviewees to give the audience a better sense of how teach different classes, working with different people, and researching different things requires different forms of writing from the professionals. I would then go into the final stage of the podcast where I really tie up the entire analysis of my two interviewees and to highlight key concepts that I found and make connections.

Major Pieces of Evidence for Each Body Section (there should be at least 2 for each) 

1. First Section: The two major pieces of evidence that I will use for the first section of my podcast are the interviews that took place (including snippets here and there) as well as their Linkinedin/social media.
2. Second Section: For this second section I would use the interviews (again), and I would also incorporate other writing genres used in the business world.
3. Third Section: For this final section I would use all the data analyzed to make my connections and inferences about what I found. I would also use additional research to find what writing genres are used for what audiences in both an academic and professional setting.

Summary of What the Evidence Proves and Why it is Important (for each piece of evidence) 

1. First section: The use of the interviews and the Linkedin profiles to create the first section of my podcast is to give the reader first-hand insight into the two professionals that I interviewed. Since I will be including actual snippets of the interview, the audience gets a better sense of their personality and the Linkedin information gives them a factual background.
2. Second section: Once again, the interviews will be used to provide primary research to my podcast which allows the audience to know it is credible data. The decision to incorporate and discuss additional genres helps further analyze/compare the two, but it also brings insight to how similar/different they are to other professionals in their area.
3. Third section: I would incorporate information that I analyzed from previous sections of my podcasts to help support the claims that I make about professionals in my major. As long as my previous statements are true, my analysis could be deemed credible. I would also incorporate additional research about how professionals in my major (or business in general) utilize different writing genres in order to reach out to a certain audience. In addition, to show how diverse the genres can be, proving that Gabriel and Slaughter aren't so different after all.

Some ideas about how to grab the reader’s attention in the opening section (at least 2) 

1. Explain the significance of effectively of teaching business students different writing techniques and how to target certain audiences.
2. Try and relate to my target audience and "involve them" in my podcast, making it more conversational rather than a lecture.

Some idea about how to explain the larger significance of your subject in the closing section (at least 2)

1. Talk about how every different profession, and every different class have very different people that are being spoken to, and only certain mediums effectively get through to those certain audiences.
2. Talk about how the use of different writing genres is okay and that it is beneficial to move away from what is considered "normal", because the normal way isn't always the most effective.