Reflection on “Writing Genres in the Field of Psychology”

Now that I have completed my podcast for Project 2, I will be moving onto Project 3. But, before doing so, I am going to reflect on the following questions about my work on Project 2.

What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

I think I incorporated the genre conventions really well. I really made sure that I included as much as I could. I incorporated some form of an introduction into every new idea to transition the listener between thoughts. I have music that plays constantly but gets louder between ideas. I had my roommate read a quote to incorporate other voices. I spoke in second person to engage the listener. I said dorky cliche things that fit my idea of a podcast like “go explore the world of psychology”. I enjoyed putting it all together - it was something that I had never done before. It was a lot of fun to be creative.

What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

It was difficult to figure out GarageBand. That was truly my biggest difficulty. I had to watch a lot of tutorials on YouTube.

As far as the actual content goes, understanding the genre conventions and how to incorporate rhetorical concepts was most difficult. I was proud of my incorporation of genre conventions but I’m not sure how well I incorporated rhetorical concepts. I included context and author. The ideas made sense in my head but I’m just not positive I fully articulated what I was trying to say.

How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

I feel confident moving onto the next project. I am a little apprehensive because at this point I am planning on doing a video essay but I think I might be more successful at attempting a standard college essay. I’ve never made a video or anything similar before so it should be an interesting experience whether I do it for this next project or for the final project.

How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

I think I did a much better job than I did last time. I am not working right up until the deadline, I didn’t procrastinate, I did a better job of understanding what was expected of me for this project. Overall, I have felt more knowledgeable about this project than I did for the last (which was totally my fault). I didn’t do well on the last project so I feel really hopeful that I will do better this time around.

Peer Review for Jake Gyles

How did you practice your editorial skills this week in peer review?

I continued to try to be constructive but also provide some suggestions for improvement. It came more easily even after just one peer edit of sincerely trying to not just be nice. I also focused on podcasts in an attempt to learn more about what I can incorporate into my own podcast. Jake definitely helped me see the type of tone I would like to take on.

I reviewed Jake Gyles’ “Rough Cut”. I chose to review content because Jake wrote that he felt pretty confident about his form.

Jake’s rough cut was pretty short. I tried to ask him questions that his content left me wondering about that might give him opportunity to expand. I also was not quite clear on how his genres were a form of writing in business so I also asked some questions that might help him make that more clear.

I incorporated that same thing from the Student Guide that I incorporated on the previous peer review. On pages 41-42, “Getting the Most from Your Workshop Experience” explains how you can give the most helpful feedback. I tried to use these guidelines throughout my reviews. It helped me to give constructive criticism in a way that didn’t make me feel too mean.

I really enjoyed Jake’s narration. He did a great job with the introduction and narration of his podcast. He sounded interested, lively, and engaging. I hope that I can emulate a similar tone in my own podcast!

Peer Review for Erin McCabe

How did you practice your editorial skills this week in peer review?

I oftentimes struggle with being critical. It just makes me uncomfortable to feel like I’m being mean. But, in this situation, the more critical, the more helpful. So, I tried to give helpful and constructive criticism instead of just saying, “Bravo, it’s great!”

I reviewed Erin McCabe’s podcast, “Project 2 Rough Draft”. Because Erin admittedly had not yet worked on the genre conventions, I decided she might find a content review most helpful.

I think erin was struggling with hitting the central idea of the project. I was not quite clear on what her genres were and did not know what her field of study was by the end of the podcast. I also did not notice the use of any rhetorical concepts. I helped her by pointing out the lack of clarity and offering some suggestions as to how she might improve her project.

On Pages 71 and 72, “Getting the Most from Your Workshop Experience” explains the ways in which you can most helpfully peer review someone’s project by highlighting unhelpful, somewhat helpful, and truly helpful comments. I tried to structure my comments in the way the the most helpful comments were structured - I tried to be specific and constructive as well as offer suggestions for improvement.

I really enjoyed Erin’s narrative of her interviews. That is something I have not included in my own project but think would be interesting to try to include. Instead of just quoting her interviewees, she narrated the interview and gave quotes as they would have happened in real time. It was very enjoyable to read.

Editorial Report B

Here I continue to go through my podcast script. However, this time I am focusing on a portion describing the rhetorical concept, context.

Rough Cut:

Here is a section from the original draft of my podcast script.

Re-edited Selection:

Here is the revision of the same section.

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 in a similar way as did the content in Revision A. Because I did not focus as much on the rhetorical concepts I had to redo a lot of my writing in order to reorient them to focus on context.  I also added in a part that functions both as an element of form and content - I am going to have my roommate read an excerpt from an article about curiosity. This functions both as evidence and a genre convention.

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?

I had to add an introduction for this portion as well (my introductions were seriously lacking, goodness). This was the largest change of form. The second largest change I made was to the narrator - my roommate will be reading a section from an online article. This helps my piece fit more in the genre of a podcast.

Editorial Report A

After creating an initial draft of my project, I have taken some time to relook at the content of my podcast script. I included the original section of the portion in which I talk about the rhetorical concept, audience, and the revised version of the same section.

Rough Cut:

Here is a section from the original draft of my podcast script.

Re-edited Selection:

Here is the revision of the same section.

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?

I needed to focus more on the audience. My attention to rhetorical concepts was severely lacking. Because of this, I completely deleted and redid the final paragraph and added in an entirely new introduction paragraph. This moved the focus away from the examples and to the rhetorical concept of the audience. This allowed the examples to function as evidence to support the claim I made in the first paragraph stating that a major difference was the audience.

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?

I included an introduction which affected the form a lot. Before that, I kind of just jumped into the content. Because of the audience-friendly nature of podcasts, an introduction was crucial to introducing the next part of my analysis of the genres.

Reflection

After finishing my draft of my podcast, there are a few successes and failures. Beyond that, I can look at how this week went and predict how next week might go or reflect on changes that need to be made in order to make next week go well. Here I answer some reflection questions.

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

I worked on the script waaaay ahead of time, put some thought and research into it, and followed my schedule for writing. I am usually very bad at time management but I stuck to my script-writing schedule. I added in some new evidence and  developed my ideas.

2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

Even though I wrote the script ahead of time, I did not record it on schedule. I was planning on recording it at around seven Sunday night but a friend had a crisis and I ended up starting at eleven. This made the final production phase quick and overall not superb. So after a good start with my script writing, I still ended up procrastinating.

3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

Next week will go one of two ways. One: I will have an extra week to work on stuff so I will be very productive and get it all done early. Or two: I will feel like I have tons of time and put it off until the last second after miscalculating the loads of time that I have. The goal would be to stick with option one.

4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

I feel like I need to broaden the evidence I have included in my podcast. That is my biggest concern along with how to then incorporate it. I am happy that I have an entire script but I think there is a lot I need to add to it. I feel good about where I am but I think there is still a lot of room for improvement.

Production Report (a and b)

Here I talk about the thought process behind adapting an outline into raw material. I show the exact changes made to the ideas and how they were executed in writing.

Outline item from section I. B. a.: “Talk about some theories in psychology that may be difficult to understand through a journal article but are made more accessible by an online article.”

Adaption: “ in ‘Autism in Infancy and Early Childhood’ a complex and emotionally distant representation of autism appeals to the reader’s sense of loic. However, in ‘A Story of Autism’, also posted on Psychology Today, a narrative full of simple, descriptive language plays on the emotions of the reader.”

1. How did you decide to use form to present your content in the raw material you’ve shared here? How did the conventions of your chosen genre influence your choices?

I used a straightforward description of the ideas I presented in my outline in order to communicate them in the script of my podcast. I used the rhetorical appeals in order to explain the effects of the approaches used in the different genres.

The rhetorical appeals are a main difference in the two genres. I focused on this because it provided a clear difference. The focus on emotion in public writing as opposed to the focus on objectivity in journal articles provides a striking contrast.

2. How did the production of this raw material go? What kinds of any hiccups, challenges, successes, creative epiphanies, etc. occurred during the process?

I still would not quite say this is done. I need to work on incorporating quotes and citing sources in the description. I am struggling some with how to do that but that is what I am giving myself some time to work on. I did not quite expect the difficulties that are coming from citing sources in a podcast.

Outline item from section I. C. a.: “The way the human brain works determines almost everything about the way the world works today”

Adaption: “Why do people do what they do? Why do I feel the way I do? Why do they feel the way they do? The innate human inclination to understand and discover pushes psychologists for answers.”

1. How did you decide to use form to present your content in the raw material you’ve shared here? How did the conventions of your chosen genre influence your choices?

I thought the use of rhetorical questions engaged the reader in a really effective way. Because this part is talking about how psychology directly affects the audience, the engagement of rhetorical questions goes along with that well.

The genre of public writing is more casual, accessible, and simple, as is my description of the writing in that genre.

2. How did the production of this raw material go? What kinds of any hiccups, challenges, successes, creative epiphanies, etc. occurred during the process?

I adapted the idea a little bit to be more engaging to the reader. I didn’t quite say that psychology determines everything about how the world works, but rather, I explained the way that it is relevant to the reader. By equating it to a smaller scale that is more easily relatable to the reader, I made the information more interesting and engaging.

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

After putting together a full draft of my podcast, I have a few ideas to reflect on. Here I will talk about the background of my podcast, what I plan on working on, and what I am proud of.

Key information about your particular project that you would like anyone who peer reviews your draft to know.

I had some issues with interviews and was only able to conduct one. I think my information is a little limited but I am working on accumulating sources to make up for that discrepancy. This is definitely a rough draft. I plan on making it longer.

Major issues or weaknesses in the “Rough Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those weaknesses)

I definitely do not include enough evidence or citations. I am working on incorporating that but citing sources and referencing sources in podcasts is just a bit confusing. If you have any ideas of how I might smoothly include sources, I would appreciate them! I am also working on making it longer. I would also appreciate any ideas of what information might be interesting to include.

Major virtues or strengths in the “Rough Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those strengths)

I think it is relatively interesting. I tried to communicate my own interest in the subject and I think I did a decent job. However, I’m curious about how interesting other people think I made it.

Here is my podcast.

Here is the script to my podcast.

Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Journal

Based on the discussions we have had in class, I analyzed the rhetorical situation of Volume 67 of the Annual Review of Psychology.

1. Who are the authors/speakers published in this specific issue of the academic journal you've selected? How many different authors are published here? What do you know - or can you find out - about these people? How are the authors/speakers portrayed in the journal issue? Cite specific details from the journal issue in your answers.

The authors published in the annual review of psychology are people who have conducted some form of research and are presenting their results. They mostly all have degrees in psychology. There are 62 authors published in Volume 67.

Based on some general research about the authors in this issue, most are professors at universities doing research. While this information is available if you look into specific authors on other sites, not much information is provided in the journal issue itself.

Because the Annual Review of Psychology is so academic, there is not much tone communicated by the authors. It is almost entirely objective.

2. Who is the intended audience for this particular journal issue? How can you tell? Are there any secondary audiences included here? Cite specific details from the journal issue in your answers.

Another result of the serious and academic nature of the Annual Review of Psychology is its limited audience.

First of all, the journal is very expensive. If one is not aware that the journal may be available through their local university, they may not ever read an article from it. This limits the audience to people who can afford it or who have knowledge about how to find it.

Second of all, the writing itself speaks to a very limited audience. The academic terms are understood best by someone who has studied psychology or who is at least familiar with the field. An average reader may not know what the hippocampus, the amygdala, or the anterior neocortex is which might limit their understanding of the article as a whole.

The intended audience includes the researchers in psychology, other workers involved in psychology, as well as students pursuing a degree in psychology.

3. What is the context surrounding this particular journal issue? How does this affect the content of the journal? (See the bulleted questions on Student's Guide page 180 for specific questions about context). Cite specific details from the journal issue in your answers.

The introduction of the issue speaks to the validity of psychology as a science. There was some initial debate during the infancy of psychology as an official science but it has been determined to be a valid science.

The introduction is responding to a more recent rumor that psychology is in “crisis” as people try to disprove its validity as a science.

This likely led them to choose explicitly scientific articles which would support the idea of psychology as a science. The articles are very reserved, objective, and structured like the writing conventions of most scientific fields.

4. What is the overall message of the journal issue? How did you decide this? Cite specific details from the journal issue in your answers.

Psychology is science. Based on the description of the changes in the general perception of psychology in the introduction, I think it is pretty clear the point they are trying to make: psychology is science. And, beyond that, there is a broader definition of science.

Science is not just experiments and labs, it is exploration, discovery, and inquiry - things that do not necessarily need to be done in a lab.

5. What purpose is the journal issue trying to achieve? Cite specific details from the journal issue in your answers.

The journal is trying to disseminate information about various studies conducted by scientists in different areas. The Annual Review of Psychology incorporates ideas from many researchers and compiles them to present information to peers in a cohesive manner.

This issues also asserts that psychology is undeniably a science. This issue presents information while also arguing the validity of psychology as a science.

Reflection on Pre-Production

Looking back on my work this week, here are some reflection questions about my progress and my feelings about moving forwards.

What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

I conducted one interview (after some scheduling difficulties and ever so very late cancellations). I got a lot of interesting information about writing in psychology as well as life in general. Conducting this interview allowed me to make a valuable connection with the Dean of Research for the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. I also have completed every blog post on time - you’ve gotta appreciate the little successes!

What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

My first interview was moved to the time of my second interview and then cancelled at the last minute. My second interviewee cancelled on my thirty minutes after we were supposed to meet. I only conducted one interview because I did not find out about the initial interview being cancelled until Sunday night. I am now faced with the obstacle of conducting an interview, incorporating that information into my podcast, and editing my podcast mid-production.

How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

If I can set up an interview early on in the week, things will go fine. However, if this ends up being a difficulty this may result in some chaos. I am going to do my best to commit to this schedule but one of my close friends who goes to school in Nashville is coming so my schedule may be subject so some spontaneous changes. Nevertheless, I am willing this week to go well.

How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

I feel very concerned about the fact that I have only conducted one interview. I think I will most likely end up conducting my final interview via Skype or email which is not ideal but it will work. Beyond that, I like my outline and I am actually kind of excited to figure out how to put a podcast together.

Production Schedule

In an attempt to effectively manage my time in order to complete Project 2, I have made a schedule of what needs to be done. Here, you can see what I will have to do, by when, and where. Now, the goal will be to stick to this.

Content Outline: Podcast on Writing in the Field of Psychology

How are you going to organize your project?

After investigating the writing that is mainly used in the field of Psychology, I have compiled my ideas for a podcast below. I move through the essay chronologically, focusing on the different ideas I have gathered from my interviews.

Here is an active link to the outline: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aRG2TDHwwotKz0v52OoUnRNJ22-tgxSEcBmi2rb2iTU/edit?usp=sharing

1. Opening
1. Psychology revolves around research, especially in the area of academia. Thus, the presentation of these results is much more formal. Beyond this there is some dissemination of information through online articles that are much more accessible to the average person.
1. Some ideas about how to grab the reader’s attention in the opening section (at least 2) [2 pt]
1. Talk about some theories in psychology that may be difficult to understand through a journal article but are made more accessible by an online article.
2. Talk about the excitement of discovery involved in research.
2. Some ideas about how to explain why the subject matters
1. The way the human brain works determines almost everything about the way the world works today
2. Understanding the brain allows us to understand people/the world
3. With anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders becoming so prevalent, psychology is a field of pressing interest
4. Writing in this area opens channels of communication between the public and the psychologists doing the research
2. Body Sections
1. Main idea for each section [3 pt]
1. Journal Articles
1. Counterfactual Thought  
1. example of the complexity of journal articles
1. shows the lack of accessibility of these journal articles
2. (mention in podcast that these are available to listeners through the website of their local university)
2. Idea from Cecile McKee: faster than a book
1. so the information is more relevant
1. people are always exploring and researching so information is always changing
2. giving the public the most relevant information allows for an informed audience
2. Online Articles
1. Decline of Play and Rise in Children’s Mental Disorders
1. example of a more simple presentation of information
1. shows the accessibility of online articles, giving the reader an idea of what is available to them
2. Idea from Cecile McKee: different form of writing that many psychologists are still adjusting to: shorter words, simpler descriptions, etc.
1. not quite as prevalent as journal articles although it is a growing field
1. the possibilities that could come from this are very positive as described in “Changes Over Time”
3. Changes Over Time
1. Less technology involved
1. Idea from Cecile McKee: before the internet, the only people who had access to journal articles were those that could afford subscriptions which were relatively expensive
1. few people read about research going on in Psychology
1. there was limited awareness and therefore limited room to make changes
2. More technology involved
1. Idea from Cecile McKee: now you can access journals through universities and online
1. the classist aspect of the dissemination of information is limited, if not nearly eliminated
1. an increased awareness could affect actual change
2. if people are aware of why people act the way they do, why certain emotions come up for themselves, etc. they can approach various situations in more mature and functional ways
3. Future possibilities
1. Idea from Cecile McKee: collaborative writing between students and teachers could yield valuable results
1. involving more students increases interest in the field
1. this ultimately increases the diversity of ideas present in psychology which opens up many possibilities and opportunities for future research, ideas, developments, etc.
3. Conclusion
1. Writing in psychology is separated by the degrees of accessibility. Journal articles are relatively inaccessible when compared to online articles.
2. The dissemination of psychology research is important because of its relevance to day to day life. The more people know about psychology, the more they can engage with people in an educated and functional manner.