Exporting Your Podcast as an MP3
Mac: GarageBand
At the top of your screen, click “Share” and then “Export song to disk.”
Make sure the box next to “Compress” is checked, and change “AAC Encoder” to “mp3 Encoder.” Change “High Quality” to “Good Quality.” Click Export and choose a location for your file.
Windows: Audacity
Click this link for an explanation of how to install the MP3 codec: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Lame_Installation#Simple_Installation
This is a little more complicated! But if you run into problems you can rely on me and your group members.
Getting Your MP3 on Your Blog
1. Go to www.divshare.com and sign up for an account.
2. Once you’re in your dashboard click the big green button that says “upload a new file.”
3. Click the “Choose File” button, locate your mp3 on your computer, and upload it to divshare (note: you’ll have to click the green “upload” button once you’ve chosen your file).
4. Once your file is done uploading, click “Dashboard” at the top of the page, and your mp3 file should be listed near the bottom of the page. Click the link that says “embed” under your file name. Scroll down to the box labeled “embed code.” Copy this code and paste it into the “create post” window on your blog. Make sure you’ve clicked the tab that says “Edit HTML,” otherwise it won’t work.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Workshop: Unit 2 Project
1. How has the author summarized the data that she or he collected in the experiment? Does this summary feel like an onslaught of numbers? Is it disorienting, or do can you process them all as the author is explaining them? How might he or she deal with this material more clearly?
2. Does the author restate clearly the original hypothesis and how the data proved or disproved that hypothesis? How could this information be better highlighted so that the listener will be sure not to miss it?
3. How does the podcast end? Is the ending effective? Why or why not?
4. How might the author interject another voice in a way that would make the podcast both clearer and more interesting?
2. Does the author restate clearly the original hypothesis and how the data proved or disproved that hypothesis? How could this information be better highlighted so that the listener will be sure not to miss it?
3. How does the podcast end? Is the ending effective? Why or why not?
4. How might the author interject another voice in a way that would make the podcast both clearer and more interesting?
http://www.unc.edu/~scarly/FinalPodcast.mp3
1. Describe this author’s hook. Does it get your attention? Why or why not?
2. Is this author’s use of music more or less successful than the previous author’s? Why or why not? What other choices might she have made regarding music that would have made her podcast clearer?
3. How does the author reformulate her hypothesis? What evidence does she cite as he presents his reformulation? Is this evidence convincing? Why or why not?
4. Do you get bored at some point with this podcast and want to stop listening? If so, note the time and what the author has done to lose your attention.
1. Describe this author’s hook. Does it get your attention? Why or why not?
2. Is this author’s use of music more or less successful than the previous author’s? Why or why not? What other choices might she have made regarding music that would have made her podcast clearer?
3. How does the author reformulate her hypothesis? What evidence does she cite as he presents his reformulation? Is this evidence convincing? Why or why not?
4. Do you get bored at some point with this podcast and want to stop listening? If so, note the time and what the author has done to lose your attention.
Model Podcast #1
http://www.unc.edu/%7Ewrightjj/unit2project.mp3
1. Describe the author’s hook. Does it get your attention? Why or why not?
2. Note the author’s use of music. Does it add anything to the podcast? Detract from it?
3. How does the author reformulate his hypothesis? What evidence does he cite as he presents his reformulation? Is this evidence convincing? Why or why not?
4. Do you get bored at some point with this podcast and want to stop listening? If so, note the time and what the author has done to lose your attention.
1. Describe the author’s hook. Does it get your attention? Why or why not?
2. Note the author’s use of music. Does it add anything to the podcast? Detract from it?
3. How does the author reformulate his hypothesis? What evidence does he cite as he presents his reformulation? Is this evidence convincing? Why or why not?
4. Do you get bored at some point with this podcast and want to stop listening? If so, note the time and what the author has done to lose your attention.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Draft Workshop March 25
Listen to the current draft of your partner's podcast and answer the following questions in Wave:
1. Compose a retrospective outline of the piece. List the main sections of the podcast, note the central claim of each section (i.e. something like a paragraph topic sentence) and note what evidence is used in each section to prove that claim.
2. Where is the author’s hypothesis? At what point in the podcast do you know that s/he is conducting an experiment? Is this soon enough? Could it be sooner? Is the hypothesis highlighted and explained adequately?
3. How do you know when the author changes focus and moves to a new section? Are they separated by silence / pauses? Sound effects? Changes in tone? Are these section divisions clear? Suggest ways in which the podcast’s organization might be highlighted for the listener.
4. Has the author used any music, sound effects or other post-production techniques? How do these change the tone of the podcast? How would the podcast be different without them? Do you think that they’re performing a function or are they just window dressing?
5. How is the fidelity of the podcast? Can you hear everything clearly? Can you understand each word that is said? Note ANY places where the content is unclear so that the author can re-record them.
6. Is the podcast 4-6 minutes long as per the assignment? If it is too short, what do you think is missing? Should the author add more background research, explain the experiment more slowly, etc.? Is it too long? If so, what information is extraneous? What don’t you need to know in order to understand the author’s experiment? Think about your own podcast and the one you listened to in the first draft workshop as you consider how this draft might be expanded or cut to meet the length requirement.
1. Compose a retrospective outline of the piece. List the main sections of the podcast, note the central claim of each section (i.e. something like a paragraph topic sentence) and note what evidence is used in each section to prove that claim.
2. Where is the author’s hypothesis? At what point in the podcast do you know that s/he is conducting an experiment? Is this soon enough? Could it be sooner? Is the hypothesis highlighted and explained adequately?
3. How do you know when the author changes focus and moves to a new section? Are they separated by silence / pauses? Sound effects? Changes in tone? Are these section divisions clear? Suggest ways in which the podcast’s organization might be highlighted for the listener.
4. Has the author used any music, sound effects or other post-production techniques? How do these change the tone of the podcast? How would the podcast be different without them? Do you think that they’re performing a function or are they just window dressing?
5. How is the fidelity of the podcast? Can you hear everything clearly? Can you understand each word that is said? Note ANY places where the content is unclear so that the author can re-record them.
6. Is the podcast 4-6 minutes long as per the assignment? If it is too short, what do you think is missing? Should the author add more background research, explain the experiment more slowly, etc.? Is it too long? If so, what information is extraneous? What don’t you need to know in order to understand the author’s experiment? Think about your own podcast and the one you listened to in the first draft workshop as you consider how this draft might be expanded or cut to meet the length requirement.
Pre-Writing: Unit 2 Projects
Partner up and read / listen to the following documents:
• The current draft of your partner’s Feeder 2.2 podcast
• Answers to the 3 homework questions that were due today
• The Unit 2 Project assignment
Next, collaborate with your partner on a provisional outline for his or her Unit 2 Project. This outline should contain at least three sections: an introduction that grabs your listener’s attention and introduces your topic; an analysis of the data that you gathered over spring break; a reformulation of your hypothesis in light of the new data and/or an indication of what kind of future research might productively explore the topic further.
For the latter two sections, highlight the central claim that you are making in each and work to ensure that the evidence you present will adequately convince the reader of those claims. In addition, try to brainstorm ways in which you might add variety to the podcast by employing different speakers / voices, sound effects, music, and other effects you have learned about working on your Feeder 2.2 podcasts. Add these ideas to the outline and explain briefly how they would make the podcast’s content clearer and more interesting.
• The current draft of your partner’s Feeder 2.2 podcast
• Answers to the 3 homework questions that were due today
• The Unit 2 Project assignment
Next, collaborate with your partner on a provisional outline for his or her Unit 2 Project. This outline should contain at least three sections: an introduction that grabs your listener’s attention and introduces your topic; an analysis of the data that you gathered over spring break; a reformulation of your hypothesis in light of the new data and/or an indication of what kind of future research might productively explore the topic further.
For the latter two sections, highlight the central claim that you are making in each and work to ensure that the evidence you present will adequately convince the reader of those claims. In addition, try to brainstorm ways in which you might add variety to the podcast by employing different speakers / voices, sound effects, music, and other effects you have learned about working on your Feeder 2.2 podcasts. Add these ideas to the outline and explain briefly how they would make the podcast’s content clearer and more interesting.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Homework Due Thursday, March 25
Answer the following questions about your experiment and post them to a new wave. Your answers needn’t be written formally, but they should be thoughtful and thorough.
1. Did the data you collected prove or disprove your hypothesis? Did you successfully change your behavior? Were the reasons you thought your behavior would change important or unimportant to that change?
2. Try looking at the data you collected without thinking about your original hypothesis… do you notice any patterns that you hadn’t anticipated in the design of your study? In other words, did your study tell you anything you weren’t looking for in the first place? Could your data be used to prove a different hypothesis than the one you posed?
3. If you did the experiment again how would you change it? How would you tie your data to your hypothesis more convincingly? Would you make the study shorter or longer, or would you change the environment or any of the other variables?
1. Did the data you collected prove or disprove your hypothesis? Did you successfully change your behavior? Were the reasons you thought your behavior would change important or unimportant to that change?
2. Try looking at the data you collected without thinking about your original hypothesis… do you notice any patterns that you hadn’t anticipated in the design of your study? In other words, did your study tell you anything you weren’t looking for in the first place? Could your data be used to prove a different hypothesis than the one you posed?
3. If you did the experiment again how would you change it? How would you tie your data to your hypothesis more convincingly? Would you make the study shorter or longer, or would you change the environment or any of the other variables?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)