Listen to your partner's podcast at least once without stopping, then answer the following questions in the Google Doc where that person kept his or her script.
1. Describe the author's implementation of the middle style. Is it a higher or lower take on the middle style? Does the author come off as a credible scientist? What aspects of the podcast contribute most to the author's voice? Be as specific as possible.
2. Do you zone out or become disoriented at any point in the podcast? At what point does the author lose your attention? Does s/he read too slowly or too quickly? Is the recording clear and easy to understand?
3. Describe how the author has implemented post-production techniques such as the addition of music, sound effects, etc. Do these help you to understand the content of the podcast or do they distract you from it?
4. Has the author done everything required for both the Introduction and Methods and Materials sections? Is this information clearly highlighted? Does the author do a good job of explaining the experiment without summarizing the results? Does the podcast sound too much or not enough like a proper scientific research report? What changes might the author make in order to enhance his or her credibility or come off as more approachable?
Now, read these questions and then listen to the podcast again, thinking about how you will answer each question. If you need to listen again, rewind and listen to part of the podcast again. When you're done, answer these questions:
1. How does the author attempt to grab the reader's attention? Do you think the reader will be "hooked" within 10-15 seconds? Can the author's attention-getter be described as one of the more or less effective introductions we talked about? Explain your answer.
2. At what point does the author transition from the Introduction section to the Methods and Materials section? Describe how this transition takes place and how the author signals to the reader that s/he should be listening for a new idea. Identify any other transitions that are unclear or confusing.
3. Is the hypothesis highlighted clearly? Can the author be absolutely sure that even a casual listener will understand the experiment's hypothesis? How does the author highlight this information? How might it be highlighted more clearly?
When you have completed the workshop, turn it in here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1oZzlTm7vZvnYd1YEVdsD52pVg4eTpqEGJh7btgYQWMQ/viewform
No comments:
Post a Comment