Selection from Rough Cut:
1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?
The content changed just a little bit. I made sure to include more about the importance of why I included the previous snippet from the interview with Dr. Pettygrove so that I wasn't just rambling about what the abstract included. I wanted to be more clear about why I needed to include the interview and why the part that I included was important. I thought that without the explanation, the podcast was missing something important. I needed to include what I learned from Dr. Pettygrove so that it related more to why I liked the field of Occupational Therapy and it wasn't just stating facts.
I think that the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version because it related to why I was interested in the content, but it also included why the information I included from the interview was important for the podcast as a whole.
2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) 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 only in the way that my voice was a bit more enthusiastic and not as monotone as it was in the first cut. The form is really affected by the tone of the author's voice because if my voice is monotone, it will not be a great podcast to listen to. I don't think that I would want to listen to anything that was super monotone and boring because I would think that if the author wasn't even interested in the topic, then why should I be interested in it? So, I think that the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version of the podcast because I actually sound interested in the topic that I am speaking about. That will help the audience to also feel more connected to the topic of Public Health and Occupational Therapy.
The form changed only in the way that my voice was a bit more enthusiastic and not as monotone as it was in the first cut. The form is really affected by the tone of the author's voice because if my voice is monotone, it will not be a great podcast to listen to. I don't think that I would want to listen to anything that was super monotone and boring because I would think that if the author wasn't even interested in the topic, then why should I be interested in it? So, I think that the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version of the podcast because I actually sound interested in the topic that I am speaking about. That will help the audience to also feel more connected to the topic of Public Health and Occupational Therapy.
No comments:
Post a Comment