Report on my Interviewees, Blog Post 6.8

I learned a great deal about writing in the field of geosciences by conducting my interviews. 

For one, scientific writing is very technical and requires concise explanation. 

Secondly, there are many forms of writing; such as dissertations, papers, journal articles, and posters/presentations. 

Finally, I learned that the process for writing in science can be incredibly lengthy and requires excellent time management.

• What are the most significant or interesting genres that you learned about from your interviewees? Please identify at least THREE specific genres from your discipline/field of study that your interview subjects discussed writing within. 

The three genres I want to analyze are scientific papers, scientific articles, and posters. 

These genres are significant because they are the main formats of data sharing for scientific writing. All convey important information about a project, field work, or research. However, they all convey their information in different ways.

• How do these genres differ from one another? Think about things like genre convention, content, purpose, audience, message, and context as you describe these differences.

Scientific papers are usually incredibly lengthy. It is not uncommon for them to go beyond 100 pages in length, depending on the subject. They attempt to analyze just about every conceivable detail about the subject matter. If, for example, a paper is written on a volcanic eruption, the paper will go in depth on what kind of eruption it was, how much lava is being produced, how much gas is being released, how the volcano evolved over the course of days, weeks, months, etc. This genre utilizes a great deal of technical terms.

Articles are like scientific papers but are usually shortened down to perhaps 20 pages or less. Because a journal has limited printing space, trying to utilize the allotted space given by the publisher is crucial. Many times, rewrites have to be done in order for the article to both explain the subject matter in depth AND fit in the allotted space. Much like scientific papers, articles feature technical jargon. Though, they may attempt to cut down on it a tad.

Posters are usually the shortest variety of scientific publication. All important information, abstracts, references, and data is crammed into a poster about the size of large coffee table. Like articles, poster authors must utilize limited space. Posters generally do an adequate job of explaining subject matter but do not go as in depth as articles or papers do. Since posters are generally hung in common areas around science buildings on campus, the technical terms might be cut down to only a few per major section.

• Based on the information you gathered in your interviews, what is challenging and/or difficult about writing within these genres (from a professional's point of view)?

Both of my interviewees stated that the hardest parts about writing in the scientific community are making papers technical, concise, and accurate and keeping up on the current research related to the paper being written. 

• Based on the information you gathered in your interviews, what is exciting and/or rewarding about writing within these genres (from a professional's point of view)?

Dr. Gehrels stated that one of the most exciting outcomes of one of his papers was that a new way of looking at the geology of an area, in this case, the Grand Canyon, was discovered. Kate Metcalf told me in our interview that doing her own dissertation was exciting and rewarding because it was she doing most of the work.

Overall, the interviews gave me a sense that creating meaningful and sometimes even revolutionary work was the rewarding experience from all of the writing.

• Where in mass media - popular, academic, and/or social - can examples of this genre be found? If genre examples cannot be found within mass media easily, where can genre examples be found/located?

Examples of scientific papers and articles are quoted in mass media often. For geosciences, any major paper on climate change or climate variations is going to get a lot of attention. 

Academic media, such as scholarly journals, posts these articles often. Popular media often tries to stay on top of the climate change controversy and quotes papers as well. 

Philippe 2009. Turning the tide on climate change, by Robert Kandel. October 15th, 2009 via Flickr. Attribution License.

From Academia to Social Media, Blog Post 6.7

Being on social media can help a researcher dissipate his or her notes rather effectively. On social media, however, the general public knows little of the technical jargon featured in most scientific journals. Therefore, a researcher might have a different style of writing for social media.

1. What is the name of the author (from the academic journal) that you selected and which social media networks were you able to find her/him on?

I chose the author Dr. Fukashi Maeno from his article in the latest edition of Geology. 

I found Dr. Maeno quoted on a YouTube video about the volcanic islet he is studying. As well, he has a webpage from the University of Tokyo. There is a page on Facebook under his name, but no info is given and he only has one like.

2. How would you describe the author's social media presence? What kinds of things are they talking about or sharing on social media? Write a brief description of what you learned about them through the listed social media feeds.

In the YouTube video, Dr. Maeno is quoted as saying, "The ideal way to monitor and avoid a natural disaster is to set up a new tsunami and earthquake detection system near the island, but it's impossbile for anyone to land on the island in the current situation." This quote shows that while in his papers Dr. Maeno certainly is technical, in any interviews with the media, he may have to be less than technical.

His webpage shares his education and work experiences.

3. Now return to the piece that this author published in the academic journal (from Blog Posts 6.5 & 6.6). How does their persona on social media differ from their persona in the pages of the academic journal? Be specific and cite details from both the journal and the social media posts you discovered.

In the journal, Dr. Maeno et al.talk about morphological evolution of the volcano in question. All authors use a great deal of technical jargon to explain their research.

In the YouTube video, however, Dr. Maeno is quoted as being significantly less technical. He talked about a new tsunami and earthquake warning system; a common topic discussed when dealing with disaster prevention in the Pacific Ocean. He had to explain the current volcano situation and ensure that the general public had a sense of understanding.

Like many scientists, Dr. Maeno writes incredibly technical and detailed papers and articles. When speaking to the media, however, he must be more broad and general.

Idea Torres. New islet from volcanic eruption melds itself to nearby island. December 27th, 2013 via Japan Daily News. Terms of Use.

Academic Discourse and Genre, Blog Post 6.6

Although writing in the field of geosciences may happen to be homogeneous, there can actually be several different writing styles within the same journal.

Inclusion of different kinds of graphs or visuals, shorter or longer paragraphs, use/disuse of technical terms, etc. can all be found within one issue of a journal.

Knowing this, I analyzed the same issue of Geology and looked for different genre styles.

• How many different kinds of genres seem to be published in this particular issue of the journal you selected? (Remember, genres are usually identifiable by their form, content, techniques and/or social function.)

There seem to be several kinds of genres in the journal. For the most part, the genres are determined by the content within each article. The form, techniques, and social function within each article do not vary much. 

• If you don't know the 'official' names for these different genres, come up with names for the yourself. Identify at least three different genres within the journal issue and describe the significant formal differences between the three genres (that is, what are the key differences or characteristics that seem to be unique and distinguish them from other kinds of texts?). If you made up your own name, explain why you chose the name you invented. If you'd like, provide snapshots of the different genres (clearly labelled) to help your reader see how they look different (or are organized differently, with different conventions) on the page. 

Three major genres found within this journal are: Earth Structures, Earth Systems, and Earth History. The main differences between these three genres is the content that is within.

Earth Structures articles tend to focus more on landscapes or land forms on Earth and their evolution. An example of this genre is "Experimental slip distribution in lentils as an analog for scaly clay fabrics," by Matthew Tarling and Christie D. Rowe. The abstract explains that the article communicates information about scaly clay fabrics. These fabrics are networks of shear surfaces in regions full of clay or silt. The researchers who authored this paper wanted to know how the fabric land forms evolved and deformed.

Earths Systems articles focus on climate science, tectonic action, volcanic activity, etc. An example of this genre is "Morphological evolution of a new volcanic islet sustained by compound lava flows," by Fukashi Maeno, Setsuya Nakada, and Takayuki Kaneko. This article is studying the current eruption of a volcano in Japan and how the volcanic islet that is being created is evolving. The researchers for this article were studying an important earth system: volcanic eruptions.

Finally, Earth History entries investigate events that happened in geologic (or even human) history. An excellent example of this genre is "Devonian subduction and syncollisional exhumation of continental crust in Lofoten, Norway," by Nikolaus Froitzheim, et al. The information in this article discusses an event that happened millions of years ago in geologic time. The researchers are trying to piece together what happened in this event, and what repercussions this event could have on future geology in the region.

• Now come up with your own definition for each genre (using the name you coined, if you weren't sure what the 'official' name is for the genre). Be sure to explain what you perceive to be the purpose of each genre and how each genre might meet the needs and expectations of a target audience.

Earth Structures: Writing with emphasis on studying geologic landscapes and land forms and their evolution. Purpose: explain the characteristics of geologic land forms and how they evolve.

Earth Systems: Writing with emphasis on researching climate, tectonics, volcanic activity, or other important systems that exist on Earth. Purpose: explain each system clearly and discuss what changes are occurring.

Earth History: Writing with emphasis on piecing together the geologic history of a particular region. Purpose: explain what geologic event occurred, how long the event took, and if the event can still be seen as happening today.

Nic McPhee. I tend to scribble a lot. January 26th, 2008. Attribution license.

Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Journal, Blog Post 6.5

For this analysis, I chose the scholarly journal: Geology. I figured that since it is one of the largest publications out there for geology and geosciences, it would have a plethora of good genre examples.

Not exactly "in my hands"; but close enough.

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.

Since most scientific journal articles are written by several scientists as part of a team, and since there are about a dozen articles in any one journal publication, there were dozens of authors in this issue. Researching all of the authors would take hours, so I will pick three from the first article I see listed in the issue.

The authors of the article, "Morphological evolution of a new volcanic islet sustained by compound lava flows" are Fukashi Maeno, Setsuya Nakada, and Takayuki Kaneko. All three of these scientists are researchers at the Earthquake Research Institute (part of the University of Tokyo).

Next to the name of Fukashi Maeno is an asterisk that is shown at the bottom of the page to be the researchers email address. I would assume from this addition that Fukashi Maeno is the lead researcher and author for this article.

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.

The intended audience for this article is fellow geosciences researchers. I can tell because the article itself uses substantial amounts of geologic jargon, such as "Lava-flow morphology" and                       "emplacement dynamics of lava flows". I would say that there is not a secondary audience. Members of the general public that are interesting in science might have a difficult time understanding this article.

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 context of this journal is the eruption of a volcano at Nishinoshima, Japan that is currently creating a new volcanic islet. This event is incredibly important in geology because researchers so rarely get to witness new islands being created through volcanic processes.

The context of this article directly affects the content. Most of the journal speaks of the "Morphological Evolution" of the islet. The evolution was measured using aerial observations and satellite images.

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.

The journal concludes that, "The morphological evolution of lava flows at Nishinoshima is controlled primarily by lava effusion," and that the eruption is producing large amounts of lava (~2 × 105 m^3/day).

From this, I gather that the researchers were trying to send a message that the islet is growing and evolving rapidly due to an underwater eruption.

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

The overall purpose of this article was to conduct a, "quantitative analysis of the eruption processes". In other words, the researchers wanted to communicate what exactly was going on with this eruption. They also wanted to explain how the islet may evolve and grow in the future.

My Major, Blog Post 6.4

Geosciences is, to me, an incredibly exciting and ever changing scientific field. Much of the world's geology is still under-researched; meaning that there are practically limitless projects being proposed to research everything from crust thickness to astrogeology (studying the geology of other planets).

1. What do students in your program or department learn how to do?

The course for geosciences at U of A list covers everything from simple, physical geology all the way up to the study of sediments and their stratigraphy and more in depth analysis of plate tectonics and structures.

However, geosciences students must also be proficient in calculus, physics, and chemistry. All three of these fields are commonplace in geosciences.

2. What do people who get degrees in this field usually go on to do for work?

Geosciences student usually need at least a Masters degree to obtain a sublime career in the field. Typically, three main avenues exist for geosciences graduates: Government, Academia, and Industry.

Government jobs include working for geosciences at NASA, working with the U.S Geological Survey, working with smaller, state wide surveys, etc.

Academia jobs include conducting research at universities or colleges, being a professor, being a teacher outside of a university/college setting, etc.

Finally, industry jobs include working for gas/oil companies, working for mining firms, exploration of new mineral reserves, etc.

3. What drew you to this field?

I gained an interest in geology by living in Tucson. The city is surrounded by mountains and I always wondered how they got there. By researching them, I found out that the mountains were formed by a process called "fault-blocking".

In this process, two sections of land along a fault gets thrust up in to the air. A section of land in the middle is thrust down. This process forms a basin or valley. Tucson sits in such a valley.

Researching this process got me interested in just what other kinds of information was present in the field.

4. Name three of the leaders/most exciting people involved in this field right now in 2016. Why are they interesting or exciting to you? These could be individual people or specific companies, organizations, businesses or non-profits. Hyperlink us to a homepage professional website for each person, if possible.

NASA and, more specifically, the Jet Propulsion Lab. This government organization interests me because not only am I interested in geology, I am interested in astronomy and planetary science as well.

James F. Reilly. Former astronaut and current geologist. Dean of Science and Tech. development for the American Public University System.

He is interesting to me because, surprisingly, there are not many professional scientists that became astronauts. Many astronauts have some kind of military background. It is interesting to see individuals that are unique in their path to space.

US Geological Survey. Main geologic survey in the U.S. Interests me because of the research being done around the country, including studying volcanoes and earthquakes.

5. What are the names of three leading academic/scholarly journals in your field? Where are they published? Give us the names and locations of at least 3. (HINT: If you have no idea what the answer to this question is, try Googling “What are the top academic journals in [insert field of study]?” and peruse the results). Make the titles of each journal into a working hyperlink to the website for that publication. (NOTE: if your links aren’t included or don’t work or if the page it directs us to is blocked from public view, I will not be able to assign you full credit for this exercise).

Geology. New York City, New York, USA.

The Journal of Geology. Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Geophysical Journal International. London, United Kingdom.

University of Exeter. Geology Fieldwork. February 28th, 2012 via Flickr. Attribution License.

My Interviewees on Social Media, Blog Post 6.3

In our modern age, one way that professionals in various fields communicate is through the plethora of social media that is available online. Such forms of media allow people in the fields to share their ideas or research, reach out to other professionals, and perhaps grow their own careers.

Looking for my own interviewees, I found this:

1. What are the names of each interviewee and which social media networks were you able to find each of them on?

Dr George Gehrels is on Facebook.

Kate Metcalf is on Facebook.

2. How would you describe each interviewee's social media presence? What kinds of things are they talking about or sharing on social media? Write a brief description of what you learned about them through the listed social media feeds.

Dr. Gehrels has a private Facebook account; not much can be seen other than a profile picture and some basic info. This makes sense considering that he is a highly respected researcher.

Kate has a greater presence on Facebook. She has many pictures of outdoor vistas and environments. This would also make sense, seeing as she is conducting research.

3. Now return to the piece that this author published in the academic journal (from Blog Posts 6.2). How does their persona on social media differ from their persona in the pages of the academic journal? Be specific and cite details from both the journal and the social media posts you discovered.

While no publications from Kate could be found (yet), I found a huge amount of work from Dr. Gehrels.

Dr. Gehrels professionalism shows on both social media and his papers. His papers are technical and concise (long and descriptive titles and abstracts) and his presence on social media is low (Private account).

U.S Geological Survery. Shiprock. July 14th, 2014 via Flickr. Attribution License.

My Interviewees as Professional Writers, Blog Post 6.2

My interviewees, being either professionals in the field of geology or on the cusp of obtained their PhDs, have written extensively. Most of their work is, of course, scientific papers. However, there are several journal articles in their resumes as well.

-Give us the name of each interviewee and write a short summary of the kinds of professional publications they've authored (according to their website, CV and/or other easily findable online resources that list their publications). You don't need to include all the bibliographic information for their publications, just the basic facts.

Dr. George Gehrels: Several journal articles, including one for Lithosphere titled: "Geology of the Grand Canyon". Other journals written for include: Journal of South American Earth Sciences, Journal of Sedimentary Research, and the Geological Society of America. Various paper publications for Geological Society of America (Bulletins, etc.).

Kate Metcalf: Currently working on her dissertation for her research in Southern Tibet on a sedimentary matrix melange recently found there. Exploration deformation of the rock layer and how collision occured to form it.

-Track down a few of their publications online. Be sure to examine at least two different publications by each interviewee (and hyperlink us to the two examples for each). What professional genres has each interviewee written in? Explain how these genres differ from each other, according to conventions, formatting, techniques, content, and anything else that seems relevant to describe.

Dr. George Gehrels: Paleozoic and Triassic Paleogeography, Paleozoic Strata in the Grand Canyon.

Kate Metcalf: No publications found online.

Dr. Gehrels (And Kate, I would assume) have both written scientific papers. As well, Dr. Gehrels has written several journal articles for well known geosciences journals and publications.

Scientific papers are typically not as widely published as journals; so there is a lot of free space for the author to write with and explain the research.

Journal articles, however, have a defined length. Authors must plan their writing so that the journal is long enough to explain the research, but not too long (longer journal = more money that must be paid to the journal).

Both types of writing involve very technical and concise writing.

-What is the context surrounding the two different pieces published by each of your interviewees? (See the bulleted questions on Student's Guide page 180 for specific questions about context). Cite specific details from the pieces in your answers.

The context for both of Dr. Gehrels' journal articles is the discovery of  rock strata and the desire to know more about it (where it came from, its composition, etc.).

 In the journal of strata in the Grand Canyon, for example, it was discovered that the rock strata found came all the way from the ancient Appalachian mountains.

This discover would not have been made without the context of finding the rock strata and analyzing it in further detail.

-What is the overall message of each piece? How did you decide this? Cite specific details from the pieces in your answers.

Paleogeography: Zircon crystals were used to discover when certain geologic terranes formed in northern California and and western Nevada. This is explained in the abstract.

Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon strata possibly came from the Appalachian mountains. This is based on the discovery of Appalachian zircon crystals in the rock strata that was being looked at.

-What purpose is each piece trying to achieve? Cite specific details from the pieces in your answers.

Paleogeography: Trying to constrain an age for the terranes found in w. Nevada and n. California (Abstract).

Grand Canyon: Trying to explain to the audience a new discovery about the Grand Canyon. This discovery was the Appalachian zircon crystals found in Grand Canyon strata.

My Interviewees, Blog Post 6.1

1. The names of the two people you're scheduled to interview for Project 2

Dr. George Gehrels and Kate Metcalf. 

2. The names of the organization(s) your interviewees work for, as well as their job titles.

Dr. George Gehrels is currently a professor at the University of Arizona. 

Kate Metcalf is a PhD student doing her research at the University of Arizona.

3. Any higher education degree that your interviewees hold and the names of the institutions that issued them.

Dr. Gehrels:

Ph.D. in Geology, California Institute of Technology, June 1986. 

M.S. in Geology, University of Southern California, June 1981. 

B.S. in Geology: University of Arizona, September 1978.

Kate Metcalf:

B.S. and M.S. from unknown (Homepage did not tell me. Interview question, perhaps.)

4. How many years your interviewees have worked in the field professionally?

Dr. Gehrels has been working in the field of geology since 1976 (40 years!).

Kate Metcalf: unknown (Interview her)

5. If you can, provide photos or images of the two interviewees (identify them with captions), as well as hyperlinks to their professional website(s) or home page(s)

Kate Metcalf                                                                                                                                                                                               Dr. George Gehrels

6. The date, time & location of your scheduled interview

Dr. Gehrels: Wednesday afternoon at 3 P.M.

Kate Metcalf: Friday afternoon at 2 P.M.

7. A list of 8 to 12 interview questions (for each interviewee) that are written to specifically reflect the interviewee's background, position and publication history:

1. Where are you from originally and how did you come to be at the University of Arizona?

2. Can you recollect the first moment when you found geology or geosciences to be an interest of yours? If so, when was it?

3. What major research efforts or projects do you remember doing in your undergraduate careers?

4. What research did you write your dissertation on? What do you remember most fondly about it? What do you remember not so fondly about it?

5. What do you enjoy most about geology or geosciences in general? Anything, perhaps, that you don't like?

6. What was your most widely published work? Why do you think it got the exposure that it did?

7. What, to you, is the hardest part about writing papers, dissertations, projects, or presentations in geosciences?

8. What is your favorite personal publication and why? Your least favorite?

Brutally Honest Self-Assesment, Blog Post 5.9

My first major English project in college is finally over. Three more will need to be completed before the class is over. Doing this self-assessment of Project 1 will aid me in the weeks to come.

1. How are you feeling about the project you just submitted for assessment? Give me your raw, unvarnished opinion of your own project overall.

I feel that, for a first project, my work was adequate. I explained the controversy and my stakeholders rather well. Also, I feel that I put enough information into the project and that my video was of sufficient length. I would say that my project does have some weaknesses, however. These will be explained below. Overall, I'd say my project is of at least a B grade quality.

2. What are the major weaknesses of the project you submitted? Explain carefully how and why you consider these elements to be weak or under-developed.

There were a few major weaknesses in my project. First of all, my narration sounded choppy or rushed at times. A nervous and rushed speaker does not articulate ideas well. Also, I only used two music clips; one during the intro and one during the credits. While music wasn't a huge necessity, I feel that perhaps I should have used more. Finally, while I tried to add some animation to the still imagery slides, I feel that they are still rather bland and might not capture the attention of the audience that well.

3. What are the major strengths of the project you submitted? Explain carefully how and why you consider these elements to be strong or well-developed.

There were many strengths in my video, however. I introduced my stakeholders well and introduced their positions. This was a key part of this Project and it was a huge success for me to get it down. Also, I found relevant and useful still images to use in my video. While they might not have had much animation to them, they still convey major plot information and imagery to the audience. Furthermore, I tried to ensure there was little "audio white space" (times when no audio is heard at all). It is much easier to capture the attention of the audience when there is constant information being conveyed. Finally, I found incredibly helpful sources and cited them in the video. These sources provided me, and could provide the audience, with a wealth of information about the positions of the three major stakeholders in this controversy.

4. What do you think of how you practiced time management for Project 1? Did you put enough time and effort into the project? Did you procrastinate and wait till the last minute to work on things? Share any major time management triumphs or fails....

I tried to set up a day by day schedule for blog work and project work. Typically, I tried to complete 1-2 blog posts everyday and get at least 2-3 scenes narrated and placed within my video. There were times of procrastination, however. A few times, I waited until Sunday to do 3 blog posts or even most of my editing or original filming! All in all, I'd say that I managed my time well and that my project ended up better off because of it.

The Andy Zone/Jaded Entertainment With Andy. I'm Finished! March 25th, year unknown via Tumblr. No License Info.

Local Revision: Variety, Blog Post 5.7

A fantastic project must also be a varied project. Using the same words or sentence lengths tends to aggravate the flow and readability/viewability of a piece. With this in mind, I looked at the Rules for Writers textbook and my project to see just how well I did in creating a project that stands up to repeated viewing.

1. How much variation is there in your sentence structures in the current draft? Can you spot any repetitive or redundant sentence patterns in your writing? Provide a cogent analysis of what the Rules for Writers reading tells you about your sentences.

I would say that while there is a decent amount of variety, all of my sentences introducing the stakeholders start off the same way and have the same length. Because of this, I will definitely change those scenes around in my Video Essay.

I might redo some of my narration to smooth out some of the paragraphs, as well. In one instance in the draft, I am quoted as saying: "The Rosetta lander landed on...". Lander and landed in such close proximity ruins the flows and understanding of the sentence and paragraph as a whole.

2. What about paragraph structures, including transitions between different paragraphs (or, for video/audio projects, different sections of the project)?

My transition slides are on point, I would say. While there is little to no animation in the film, I explain what will happen in the next scenes rather well. If there is one thing I should change, it is the language of some of the slides. Some seem confusing, such as the slide labeled: "Not So Fast...".

3. What about vocabulary? Is there variety and flavor in your use of vocabulary? What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the draft's approach to vocabulary?

My vocabulary is varied between simplistic words used to keep the audience interested in a controversy with some rather complex elements and more interesting vocabulary. Words such as rendezvous, distinct, and opposition make their appearance. However, the word good is used perhaps far too many times!

Overall, my vocabulary for this project is rather strong; but I should still make several changes.

Movieing Memories Wedding Videography. HD CinematicWedding Videographer Videography Video Production Austin. September 4th, 2007 via Flickr. Attribution License.  

Local Revision: Pronoun Usage, Blog Post 5.6

I did not use a great deal of pronouns in my project. Typically, I referred to stakeholder personalities or journalists by their proper names. However, the pronouns I did use were used properly and ensured that the film did not sound too choppy or lengthy.

Pronoun List

1. Based on your analysis, how effective is your pronoun usage in Project 1? What does actively examining your pronoun usage tell you about your writing style?

While I did not use that many pronouns in my project, the ones I did use were placed effectively. For example, the introductory sentence of my project: "When you look at a picture of Earth from space, you'll see its most distinct feature right away: its oceans."

"You" was used to connect with the audience and involve them in the video. "Its" was used to refer to the Earth s so as to shorten the piece and improve the flow.

Looking at my pronoun usage, it seems to me that I tend to use more proper nouns in my work than perhaps most other people. I want to ensure that quoted persons are given their due credit.

2. Are there any instances in your project where you speak to or refer directly to the audience? If so, how effective are these moments at creating a bond or connection between audience and author?

I attempted to connect my audience to my project from the get go. By using the pronouns "you" and "we" I established a link with the audience. I wanted them to be involved listeners and perhaps even researchers themselves. I would say that my strategy was somewhat effective. There were certainly moments where the audience would have to be, due to my pronoun usage, involved in viewing the video.

Tara Hunt. Audience. September 9th, 2013 via Flickr. Attribution License.

My Pronouns, Blog Post 5.5

The use of pronouns in any project is critical. It would be madness to write out every important persons' name over and over again in a project! To shorten a piece, and ensure good flow, pronouns must be used.

After looking over my own use of pronouns in my Video Essay, I complied this list:

Pronouns List

Tjo3ya. Sentence-diagram4. February 7th, 2012 via Wikimedia. Attribution License.

Local Revisions: Active and Passive Voice, Blog Post 5.4

The voice of a piece of writing or any other work is particularly decisive in grabbing the attention of the audience. Active verbs can vividly describe what the characters in a work are/were doing and why they did it. As well, active verbs keep the audience interested in the actions of any characters. Passive verbs are just as important; serving as the precursors to useful information or events. With this in mind, I looked over the verbs in my project and split the verbs into three columns: Active Specific, Active General, and Passive.

Verb List

Active Specific:

Identify

Saying x2

Believes x5

Released x2

Condensed x2

Forming x2

Impacting

Impacted

Revealed

Ignited

Launched x2

Rendezvous

Launch

Analyze

Landed

Analyzing

Rebutt

Quoted

Resolved

Published

Spawn

Claim

Contain

Maintain

States

Proven

Pictured

Writes

Explained

Reported

Collected

Determined

Conducted

Informed

Excited

Active General:

Look

See x2

Came x2

Are x4

Brought x6

Using

Took

Was x2

End

Set 

Would

Sent

Had

Exists

Appears

Put x2

Make

Agree

Happened

Were

Fell

Needed

Could

Travel

Bring

Return

Have

Found x2

Provide

Passive:

N/A

1. Looking at the breakdown of your verb choices here, what do you notice about your current draft? Are the actions in your piece mostly general, vague or non-specific? Are the actions mostly vivid and specific? Are there instances of passive voice? Summarize what you learned by analyzing your verb usage in this way.

I would say that my draft has a great deal of specific verbs. I tried to add some vivid description to the events that unfolded in the controversy. As well, I wanted to make sure that the audience could identify specific actions and events with specific verbs (e.g. the Rosetta probe landed on the comet). Some general verbs were used; but mostly to the effect of adding on to the specific verbs. There were no real instances of passive voice within my piece. Again, i wanted to ensure that specific events were being described in detail.

2. Based on this analysis, how could your use of verbs be improved overall in the project? Be specific and precise in explaining this.

I could perhaps try to include some passive verbs so that the audience doesn't get bored with the verbs at hand. Also, I could try to replace some of the more boring general verbs (e.g. Are) with more specific verbs. Overall, I felt as if I did a good job of picking specific and vivid verbs for my project.

Bria. Pellicola Film. February 13th, 2012 via Wikimedia. Public Domain.

Local Revision: Verb Usage, Blog Post 5.3

Looking back at my Verbs List, it is clear to me that several verbs were used very often. Because of this, a common verb tense was also seen in my Video Essay. I divided my Verbs List into three columns on this blog post: Past, Present and Future:

Past:

Came x2

Released x2

Condensed x2

Brought x6

Impacted

Took

Revealed

Was x2

Ignited

End

Launched x2

Landed

Sent

Had

Rebutt

Quoted

Resolved

Published

Spawn

Happened

Were

Fell

Explained

Reported

Collected

Needed

Determined

Conducted

Found x2

Informed

Excited

Present:

Look

See x2

Identify

Saying x2

Are x4

Believes x5

Forming x2

Impacting

Using

Launch

Analyzing

Exists

Appears

Rebutt

Saying

Claim

Contain

Maintain

States

Make

Agree

Writes

Could

Bring

Return

Have

Future:

End

Set

Rendezvous

Would

Analyze

Put x2

Travel

1. Which tense is the most prevalent in your draft?

I would say that past tense is the most prevalent. In the Video Essay, I explained many events that occurred in the past. Therefore, it made sense for the verbs to past tense heavy.

2. What effect or tone/quality does the current usage of tense have on the reader/viewer/listener?

It explains to the reader that many events in this controversy happened in the past. At the same time, it shows that there is a great deal of current research being conducted along with many plans for future research.

3. If you're using more than one tense in the draft (which is not a bad thing at all), do the shifts between different tenses in the piece make sense? How do they flow? Are there any jarring or dischordant shifts in tense?

There are some odd switches (In the Video Essay, I explained the launch of the Rosetta probe in 2004 but used the future tense verbs Set and Rendezvous) but overall, the flow between past, present, and even future is rather smooth.

Author Unknown. Free stock photo of person, apple, laptop, notebook. May 19th, 2013 via Pexels. CC0 License.

My Verbs, Blog Post 5.2

Word choice of any kind is important for a piece of writing. Verbs, however, are incredibly important. They are the key words that can describe action or movement that characters are performing. Therefore, it is important to pick descriptive verbs and avoid using the same verbs as much as possible.

Listening through my Video Essay, I wrote down all of the verbs that I used to convey the actions of the major stakeholder groups, their projects (space probes, scientists, etc.), and even the audience and myself.

Verb List

Carport. List icon. June 30th, 2009 via Wikimedia. Public Domain. 

Local Revision: Wordiness, Blog Post 5.1

One of the major editing issues that I will face for this project is whether or not I should shorten certain sections in my Video Essay that seem lengthy. I want to include tons of detail, but I also need to keep the audience interested. With that in mind, I took a look at the lengthiest scene in my Video Essay:

Original Transcript:

"This is the Kuiper Space Sciences Building on the University of Arizona campus. It is home to the OSIRIS-REx program: a joint mission conducted by the University of Arizona and NASA. According to NASA, OSIRIS-REx will travel to a near Earth asteroid called Bennu and bring a small sample back to Earth for study. The mission will be launched in April of 2016 and the sample will return to the Earth in 2023. The mission will have a profound effect on the controversy at hand. If Earth-like water is found on the asteroid, that will provide a good amount of evidence for the asteroid stakeholder group. However, if the water found is very different from Earth's, that find would be evidence in favor of either the volcano stakeholder group or perhaps the comet stakeholder group. I hope that this project has both informed my viewers of the controversy at hand and gets them excited for the new finds that are on the horizon for this controversy."

Revised Transcript:

"This is the Kuiper Space Sciences Building at the University of Arizona. It is home to the OSIRIS-REx program: a mission conducted by the University of Arizona and NASA. According to NASA, OSIRIS-REx will travel to an asteroid called Bennu and bring a sample back to Earth for study. The mission will be launched Spring 2016 and the sample will return to Earth in 2023. The mission will have a profound effect on the controversy. If Earth-like water is found, that will provide credible evidence for the asteroid stakeholder group. However, if the water found is different from Earth's, that find would be evidence for the volcano stakeholder group or the comet stakeholder group. I hope that this project has both informed and excited my viewers."

Joshua Smith. Kuiper Space Sciences Building. February 4th, 2016.

Peer Review 2

Projects that I reviewed:

David Klebosky. Red Card: Qatar World Cup Labor Crisis

Review for Red Card: Qatar World Cup Labor Crisis

Mariana Chacon. Nina Pham QRG

Review for Nina Pham QRG

1. What did you learn about your own project (or the project in general) by comparing drafts of the same project in different genres?

I learned that the Video Essay could be done in several ways, potentially. Whereas my Video Essay has mostly my voice and shows my face for just a few brief moments, the Video Essay I reviewed had the author on screen throughout the film. For the most part, though, we both conveyed the information that needed to be conveyed. 

As well, I learned that the QRG format remains stable, typically. The information is presented in an online news story format that does not have much variation. 

I feel that overall, the Video Essay allowed for more freedom within conventions.

2. I want you to plan on doing revision between now and our next class meeting on Tuesday. Tell me the top three issues or problems with your draft in its current form and what you plan on doing over the weekend to address those issues.

Issue #1: Lack of music.

My Video Essay has no added sound other than my own voice and the music from one of the documentary films I put in the film. I plan on adding some music for at least the introduction and credits scenes; potentially in other places as well.

Issue #2: Mostly static images.

Much of my Video Essay is still imagery. While this hasn't been a hindrance in the past (think Ken Burns) I should try to add some interesting themes to the images used or perhaps add some more video clips.

Issue #3: Length

I honestly feel that my project is rather lengthy. While this is good in terms of conveying information, it is bad in that I can lose the audiences' attention rather easily. I should add a few more transitions to keep the audience focused.

3. Tell me the top three strengths of your draft. How/why are these things strengths? How will you build on them to make the rest of the draft as strong?

Strength #1: I introduced my stakeholders well and stated their positions. This is important because the entire purpose of this major project was to identify a controversy and the stakeholders within it. I will potentially add more claims that each stakeholder makes to solidify their positions as a whole.

Strength #2: Engaging imagery.

I used many pictures of space, earth, or celestial objects in my presentation. For my audience and myself, these images convey a sense of wonder and bewilderment. This will keep my audience focused on the information being conveyed.

Strength #3: Outside video sources.

The documentary used in my draft and the video of the Rosetta spacecraft launch both add context and useful information to my project. They let the audience see, up close and personnel, information and primary sources that affect the current controversy. 

Peer Review 1

I peer reviewed Ryan Wolfe's project: "Mitochondrial Replacement and "Three Parent Babies". Overall, Ryan presented a strong overview of all of the stakeholders involved in the controversy and their opinions. As well, he had several sources and quotes to back up his claims.

Reviewing his project made me think about the project that I am working on. Looking at his draft, I realize now that images of main characters for the stakeholder groups would be beneficial to the audience. However, I also feel as if I explained my controversy very well.

Ryan made two mistakes in his draft that should be fixed or examined. First of all, there was no works cited for the paper. Secondly, some more elaboration on the controversy as it stands today would make a much stronger paper.

Ryan also made very smart edits in his project. He posted an image of what Mitochondrial Replacement looks like in order to educate the audience. As well, he explained each stakeholders position very well. I hope to emulate both in my own project by adding relevant video or images to my Video Essay and perhaps elaborating on stakeholder positions a bit more.

Mitochondrial Replacement and "Three-Parent Babies" By Ryan Wolfe.

109H Grading Rubric for the project.

Draft of Project 1, Blog Post 3.11

Draft of the Video Essay: https://youtu.be/HC6-aRkmBM4

Viewers watching this video essay should know that I tried to cut down on the technical jargon as much as possible. Please pay attention to the images or transitions and tell me if anything needs improvement. I know that I need to add some music at the intro and credits scene. Please give me feedback about the flow of the video and if it seems too long, too short, etc.

The Time Period, Blog Post 3.10

The controversy over Earth's water has had repercussions around the world the past few years. The two largest space agencies in the world: NASA and the European Space Agency, are committed to researching it. As well, researchers in the U.S as a whole were and are still trying to look into the controversy. However, on a local scene, there might not have been as much to write about.

The time period for this current controversy overall has been from the present day back to the discovery of water ice on comet Hartley 2 back in late 2011.

Local News Stories:

UA News, Anticipation builds for OSIRIS-REx Launch.

AZ Daily Star, UA-built cameras ready for space adventure.

National:
Washington Post, Rosetta's comet displays rarely seen water ice on its surface.

Huntington Post, Hartley 2 Comet Leaks Water, NASA Photograph Shows.

International:
BBC News, Rosetta Results: Comets 'did not bring water to Earth'.

Al Jazeera, Rosetta space probe poised for comet landing. 


One of the major moments in the controversy I selected was the Rosetta mission discovery that ice water on comet 67P was not similar to Earth water. This was a major find that put the Comet stakeholder group on its heels. That story broke in late 2014. In that same year, Russia annexed Crimea, a Malaysian airlines jet was shot down over Ukraine, Islamic State was starting to make international headlines, the FIFA World Cup was held in Brazil, Israel and Hamas fought in the Gaza Strip, the Ebola Scare struck the world, and the midterm elections in the U.S brought the House and Senate in to Republican control.


Local news summary:

Both stories touch mostly on the University of Arizona's partnership with NASA and the missions being planned. One of the major NASA-UA missions is OSIRIS-REx. The purpose of this mission will be to collect a small sample of rock from an asteroid in the Solar System and return the sample to Earth. This story could have major repercussions for the controversy that I am studying. If data comes back that asteroids contain water very similar to Earths, that data could tip the scale in favor of the Asteroid stakeholders.

National:

The Wash Post article reported on recent discoveries on the comet 67P. These discoveries included finding water ice on the surface of the comet.

The Huff Po article is from the Hartley 2 discovery in 2011. As stated in earlier blog posts, this discovery led more and more scientists to believe that Earth's water may have come from comets.

International:

The BBC article reported on the Rosetta mission and its discovery of water that was very different chemically from Earth's water. This story led scientists to believe that water may have come from other sources; such as asteroids.

The Al Jazeera article reported on Rosetta as well. However, it talked about the preparation for landing the probe on the comet itself.

GotCredit. News. March 16th, 2015 via Flickr. Attribution License.

The Setting, Blog Post 3.9

My controversy is interesting in that the setting is rather large and overwhelming. The setting for my controversy is the Solar System itself (Earth included!). As well, the time period for this setting is both billions of years in the past all the way up to the present day.

Going back in time, we can see the early Earth. It is hot, volatile, and rough. Volcanoes are spewing out molten rock and at constant rate. If one were to stand on the surface of the early Earth, they would be incinerated almost instantly. It was not a nice place to be! On top of the scorching heat, there is a constant bombardment of rocky bodies from other parts of the Solar System. Every time an asteroid or comet hits the Earth, it impacts with a sound louder than a thousand jet airliners taking off!

Many millions of years later, and rain starts to fall. It keeps coming in a torrential downpour. The storm will not pass for millions upon millions of years. Oceans are created. The Earth we know of today is starting to take shape every so slightly.

As stated earlier, however, the setting is not limited to just the Earth. A giant ring of asteroids surrounds the inner Solar System (it lies between the planets of Mars and Jupiter). In this ring, asteroids moving at thousands of miles an hour crash and collide with one another in deafening silence. Every several million years or so, an asteroid will be ejected from the ring and hurtle towards the Earth. Comets are not so different.

Going even farther away from Earth, we reach an area of the Solar System known as the Kuiper Belt. Many comets that we know of today come from this region. Attracted by the suns gravity, they sometimes pass into the Solar System and start to eject their brilliant, wispy tails. Even more rarely than asteroids, a comet may sometimes collide with the Earth.

Reading this setting description, one might get the idea that the Solar System, and our planet, are very violent places. Truth be told, that's not an entirely wrong assumption!

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. NASA’s Hubble Telescope Finds Potential Kuiper Belt Targets for New Horizons Pluto Mission. October 16th, 2014 via Flickr. Attribution License.

Stakeholder #3, Blog Post 3.8

The third and final stakeholder in this controversy are scientists who claim that volcanic activity was the main catalyst for bringing water to Earth. This group is the most unique in their beliefs in that they claim the Earth itself was able to produce most of its own water. This is a far cry from the the other two stakeholder groups.

1. Can you describe this third stakeholder in 200-250 words?

Like the other two stakeholder groups, this group is not one specific person. It is a group of scientists with the same claim: Volcanoes provided the planet its water. Looking at the BBC documentary Earth Story, it seems as if geologists would be more likely to back this theory than planetary scientists. This stakeholder group has arguably been around longer than the other two (Comet/Asteroid stakeholders). However, this is mostly due to the fact that the other two groups sprung out of theories made somewhat recently.

This stakeholder group is doing very interesting research, as well. They are studying volcanic processes here on Earth to see if their theory is a viable one. Though, since it is astronomically easier to study rocks here on Earth than out in the cosmos, this stakeholder group has a distinct advantage. Given all of these factors, I would give a slight edge to the Volcano stakeholders in this controversy. However, much more research needs to be done to even come close to crowning a "winner" in this controversy.

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder?

Claim #1: Volcanic activity produced a great abundance of water vapor. Aubrey Manning in the BBC documentary series Earth Story quoted (41:30- 41:55 in the video) that, "The volcanoes erupting here (Ancient Earth) were producing vast quantities of water vapor with the lava."

Claim #2: The water vapor produced by early volcanoes condensed and fell back to the Earth over millions of years, creating the oceans. In the same Earth Story video, Aubrey Manning states (41:30-41:55) that, "It was this water (from the volcanoes) which was condensing to form the primitive ocean."

Claim #3: The Earth received most of its water from within itself due to the accretion process in the early Solar System. Chris Cesare's article in Nature provides a link to a scientific paper in Science claiming that, "water has been around since the Earth formed, trapped on grains of dust that aggregated to make a planet". 

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are?

Claims 1 and 2 have a great deal of evidence to back them up. The ancient lava rocks seen in the documentary show signs of crystallization involving water. As well, scientists have theorized for many years that Earth had oceans very early on in its existence.

Claim #3 is a very recent claim. Therefore, there is not a substantial amount of data that backs it up. The findings are, however, very intriguing and could tip the controversy in favor of the Volcano stakeholders in the future.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders?

This stakeholder group is completely unique from the other two (Comets or Asteroids bringing water to the Earth). Rather than celestial bodies bringing most of Earth's water, the rocks trapped deep within the planet's interior provided most of the life giving liquid.

{sara-ann}. Red Hot Lava. March 3rd, 2008 via Flickr. Attribution license.

Stakeholder #2, Blog Post 3.7

A good controversy does not have only one side arguing their case. Such a scenario would be just plain silly! The second stakeholder in my controversy are scientists who claim that it was asteroids, not comets, that brought water to the early Earth. This group has arguably grown the most from this controversy.

1.  Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words?

Similar to stakeholder #1, this stakeholder is not any one specific person. It is a group of scientists that claim that asteroids brought water to Earth instead of comets. One such place to find many scientists who are a part of the stakeholder group is the European Space Agency (ESA). Kathrin Altwegg, the principal investigator for the Rosetta/ROSINA program, could be considered a "member" of the stakeholder group. She has made claims (listed under question 2) that the data from the Rosetta mission provides solid evidence that comets could not have brought water to the early Earth. Instead, it was asteroids.

This stakeholder group has popped up very recently. While there was a spattering of scientists who believed that asteroids were the main delivery system of water before the Rosetta mission, the data from the mission persuaded many more scientists to join the group. While the stakeholder group is young, it also has very recent data to back up their claims and a great deal of support. It will be interesting to see how future data will affect this stakeholder group.

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder?

Claim #1: Asteroids were the main system of water delivery to the Earth, not comets. Kathrin Altwegg is quoted, "Our finding also rules out the idea that Jupiter-family comets contain solely Earth ocean-like water, and adds weight to models that place more emphasis on asteroids as the main delivery mechanism for Earth’s oceans.”

Claim #2: Despite claims that asteroids have less ice water than comets and are therefore not reliable mechanisms for water delivery, this stakeholder group claims that asteroids very well could have brought water. Kathrin Altwegg again stated that, "Today's asteroids have very little water — that's clear. "But that was probably not always the case. During the Late Heavy Bombardment 3.8 billion years ago, at that time, asteroids could have had much more water than they could now."

Claim #3: The water was delivered during the Late Heavy Bombardment Period (4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago). Charles Choi writes in his Space.com article, "prior studies have hinted that cosmic impacts could have easily brought water later, during a violent era known as the Late Heavy Bombardment, about 800 million years after Earth's formation."

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are?

Claim #3 is generally accepted as being a backed claim. Claims 1 and 2, however, might be a bit harder to back up. While the Rosetta mission did provide evidence against comets bringing water to Earth, more studies must be done. Only a handful of comets have ever been studied thoroughly enough to make predictions.

As well, it is hard to speculate just how much ice water asteroids contained 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago. It could have been substantially more than we see in asteroids today, or the same amount we see in asteroids today. Claim #2 is therefore mostly conjuncture.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders?

The Asteroid stakeholders and Comet stakeholders have at least one belief in common: both groups claim that celestial bodies in our solar system brought water to the early Earth. The difference is: what kind of bodies they were.

Asteroid stakeholders would be opposed to those scientists who claim that volcanic activity brought water to the Earth's surface. Earth didn't just start off with water, they claim. It had to come from somewhere else.

sammydavisdog. Hubble Finds Smallest Kuiper Belt Object. February 1st, 2010 via Flickr. Attribution License.

Stakeholder #1, Blog Post 3.6

One of the major stakeholders in my project are scientists who claim that comets delivered water to the early Earth. While their claim has been under the scrutiny the last few years, the "Comet Theorists" stakeholder group still maintains a significant presence in the scientific community.

1.  Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words?

As stated earlier, this stakeholder is not one specific person or scientist. This stakeholder is a community of scientists that, more or less, make the same claims about comets and their impact on the evolution of the planet Earth. They have no specific website or headquarters. These scientists work at universities and institutions around the world; including NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA). One such scientist is Gören Pilbratt, a Project Scientist for the ESA's Herschel Program. He was a member of the team that discovered water with very similar chemical properties to Earth water on the comet Hartley 2. The discovery of this water was the main event that set the controversy in motion.

Recently, this stakeholder group has had their claims come under intense scrutiny. When discovering that comet Hartley 2 had water with similar chemistry to Earth water, many media and science publications wrote articles detailing the data from the space mission and how it could impact the scientific community. In 2014, however, the narrative changed. ESA's Rosetta mission discovered water on a different comet, 67P, that was very different from Earth water. After this discovery, many media publications stated wholeheartedly that Earth's water probably didn't come from comets at all.

Despite this, the stakeholder group still remains. More analysis of comets is needed before any precise answer to the controversy can be found.

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder?

Claim #1: Comets have a great deal of ice water. The ESA is quoted in one of their published articles as saying that comet 67P does, "indeed include a significant amount of water ice."

Claim #2: Comets have water chemistry similar to that of Earth's water. Gören Pilbratt stated in another ESA article that, "The unique sensitivity and spectral resolution of the HIFI instrument flown on board Herschel enables us to observe different isotopologues of water in comets. As this result clearly demonstrates, HIFI observations are shedding new light on the possible origins of water on Earth."

Claim #3: The comets brought water to the Earth early in its history. According to planetary scientists, this process occurred during the Late Heavy Bombardment Period about 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago. Carey Lisse of Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory is quoted as saying, “Where the comets are hitting the rocky bodies is in the habitable zone around this star, so not only are life-forming materials possibly being delivered to rocky worlds, but also in the right place for life as we know it to grow".

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are?

Claims 1 and 3 have been backed by scientific study. The Rosetta mission did indeed find ice water on comet 67P and the theory that Earth was created from accretion and impacts of several rocky bodies in our solar system is well supported.

Claim 2, however, may be harder for scientists to believe. The Rosetta mission also found that water on comets can vary wildly. This would mean that even a handful of comets with heavier water than is seen on Earth could tip the balance. For many, the Rosetta mission appeared to doom the comet water theory to the dustbin of scientific theories.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders?

The claims of Comet Theorists are very similar to the claims of scientists who believe that it was asteroids that instead brought water to the planet. Both stakeholders believe that it was celestial bodies that brought Earth most of its water, not processes such as volcanic activity. However, these claims stand in stark contrast to the claims of scientists who believe that volcanic processes released water vapor in to Earth's early atmosphere.

Don Davis. Planetoid crashing into Primordial Earth. Original work completed March 27th, 1991. Uploaded to wikimedia on October 9th, 2010. Image released to the public domain.