A Critique of My Podcast

In an attempt to assess my own enhanced podcast, I've decided to use the criteria that Jen and I came up with in the last class. Here it goes:

-Creativity
While creativity is a subjective form of criteria, I think that my podcast is creative in a unique way. Since I was able to use multiple resources that others in the class did not, I would say that this is a form of creativity. For instance, though I scripted the podcast, I created a dialogue between a Digital Native (closer to myself) and a Digital Immigrant (not so much myself, but somewhat) by asking my husband to represent an oppositional line of thought as the Immigrant. This representation went far beyond the audio input of the project, since the images corresponded with an overall mood or feeling of the differences between the two (ex. the images present during the Native's arguements were rapidly presented across the screen, while the stagnant, relic-like pictures of the Immigrant remained stationary).

-Mastery of Technology
Since the term "mastery" is a bit of a stretch from what I would call my acquired knowledge, I think I should specify that mastery does not mean complete control over a knowledge base in this instance, but it refers more to the acquisition of knowledge and the demonstration of skills learned. In this aspect, I think that my podcast fulfills this requirement, since the components of audio, music, images, and transitions occur in my podcast. Proficiency, though, is something that I could only gain from either re-working my initial podcast or starting a new project that could be used to increase my knowledge and learn more about Garageband and iTunes.

-Appropriate Images / Affective Music/Audio
The images that I used to correspond with the audio were appropriate and expressed a mood distinct to the Native and/or the Immigrant, as described above in 'Creativity." As far as the music is concerned, I think that differentiating the music between the two opposing sides was key, so as to keep the two distinct from one another. Also, in using a different intro/conclusion music, it seemed to function less as an intermediary, and more to represent the opening and closing of the podcast, which were both different from the dialogue in the middle.

-Conforms to Length Restrictions
My podcast fulfills the original length regulations, 5-7 minutes. At approximately 5 1/2 minutes long, this criteria has been met without over-doing the amount of information that is presented and discussed.

-Relevance to Audience/Assignment
One of the effects of the Flatworld as posed by Friedman is the great divide between those who have the knowledge of technology and how to manipulate it, and those who do not. Hence, the debate between the Native and the Immigrant is of great significance in the new world that is suddenly flat. While there is no reference to Friedman, per se, the entire dialogue between the Native and the Immigrant shows the clear distinctions between them in this new flat world.

-Vocal Representation is Suitable to Content/Affect
In using two separate voices, one male and one female, to represent the differing sides of technology knowledge base, it seemed the most effective use of my resources. Rather than a flat broadcast with one voice arguing both sides, I thought it would be better to show just how distinct the sides were by using the two voices.

-Overall Impression of Podcast
Biased as I am, I think that my enhanced podcast was a great first try. In following the assignment, I found relevant images to match with my overall affect/mood of being torn between the world of the Native and Immigrant that I feel I am faced with, as both a future teacher and as a person. I think that a lot of us feel this way, that we are part of both worlds, and that one may triumph over the other with serious side effects. While these effects may benefit our students in the classroom, or rather, out in the real world, what about the literature that we all know and love and want to share with our students? I think this contrast, this sense of being torn, is the real issue at the heart of my podcast: what will be lost with the changing literacies in the next hundred years? Will technology trump the print literacies and make them obsolete? What about reading and writing?