I chose Activity 1, or making a content suggestion. I told Jake that I thought his description of his genres were good, but he should include more detail and be more specific. Letting him know that his analysis of each genre needed more detail should hopefully help him to make each genre more clear and create a more developed final cut. I also reminded him to include citations, which is just a part of the project's guidelines, and suggested he include some sort of sound effect in between transitions, so that they can be more clear.
I incorporated the Project 2 assignment sheet and other genre examples on d2L into my peer review for Jake. The assignment sheet states that we need to have an in depth rhetorical analyses for each of our genres, which I emphasized he include in his rough cut. I recommended a few conventions that I had found in the podcast examples on d2L, and comment on what he did well based on the examples as well.
What I really admired about Jake's rough cut was the way he spoke. He sounds very natural and conversational in his rough cut, which is something I'm really struggling with in mine. I don't know if he's reading off a script or not, but it doesn't sound like it, which is really good. His choice of words is interactive with the viewer as well, which are all things I'm going to need to improve on in my own podcast.
Just from looking at a few rough cuts from the class, everyone's sounds different and is unique somehow. It'll be interesting to see how they all turn out!
No comments:
Post a Comment