Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Pick a podcast episode to listen to, write a review for, and then record yourself reading it.
By “review,” I mean a two- to three-page (double-spaced) discussion of what you liked and didn’t like about the different components of podcast production that we have only just began to explore in class. So, everything from the speakers’ voices (appropriate for the subject matter &/or the general feel of the show; engaging?) to the sound quality; to the use of music and any additional audio, such as sound effects; the storytelling (if that’s what they’re doing); the depth of the information they provide; substantiation of their opinions; the entertainment value; the flow of the production (Does it flow smoothly? Do you think the producers adequately covered their objective after the show ended, but without a lot of “fluff” or unnecessary dialogue? Of course, there are more things you may ask, and different types of podcasts will place varying emphasis on different areas of production. Please send me an email if you have any questions.
The task is as follows:
You can listen to one of the episodes linked below, or if you have a favorite podcast that you think would inspire your work, you can listen to one episode from that podcast.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkc This American Life https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkc
No Coincidence, No Story! is the title of this episode.
We asked listeners to email us their favorite coincidence stories, and we received over 1,300! We decided to build an entire concert out of them because there were so many good ones. From a serendipitous meeting at a bus stop to a romantic dollar note to a perplexing apparition in a college shower cubicle, there’s something for everyone.
Modern Romance
https://player.fm/series/1248280
For 16 years, the New York Times’ Modern Love column has provided readers a glimpse into real people’s tangled love lives. The column has grown into a TV show, three books, and a podcast since its inception. Now, we’re thrilled to announce that the podcast will be relaunched at The New York Times, presented by Daniel Jones, editor and creator of Modern Love, and Miya Lee, editor of Tiny Love Stories and Modern Love initiatives. We’ll bring you their favorite stories from the column’s extensive archive each week, as well as interviews with the authors and a few surprises. Every Wednesday, a new episode is released.
How did this come to be?
https://player.fm/series/how-did-this-get-made-273…
Have you ever seen a film that is so awful that it is brilliant? Jason Mantzoukas, Paul Scheer, June Diane Raphael, and Paul Scheer all want to know about it! We’ll watch it with our most amusing buddies and report back to you on our findings.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Paper on the Modern Love Column Podcast |
Paper on the Modern Love Column Podcast