Evaluate your finished Wikiality against my design specifications (edited and published in Wikipedia)
After our group finished writing the sources and making a few adjustments about Tsagaan Sar on Wikipedia; our group logged into the Wikipedia site (just as how Ms. Wilson told us to). From here, we edited what we had to and included the citations as well. All in all, I think our group did a good job in editing and adding new information. When we checked later on, our group’s work wasn’t deleted or even changed. This clearly indicates that our alteration was good enough that no one actually DIDN’T do anything to it~

Evaluate your work at each stage of the project (A,B, and D)
For the first criterion A; our class started off with answering a couple of questions related to Wikipedia. I was in the same group with Jonathan and Jun Pyo. If looking back in the earlier entries, it can be seen that all of our group members were diligent and hard working. Through the questions that we were supposed to answer, I learned how Wikipedia cannot be a good source of information. Before learning this project, I didn’t realize how Wikipedia cannot be as accurate as any other sites. Although many teachers did inform us about this issue; it seemed to me that everything on Wikipedia were true. However, for the 100^th time, I came to an understanding that Wikipedia CANNOT always be accurate or reliable. This was the first part of investigation. The second part of the investigation was to choose a certain topic in Wikipedia and find any errors and then edit it. We chose ‘Tsagaan Sar’, and we found at least two or three mistakes. This task finishes by researching some information.

Moving on to the next criterion, B, I actually had to do a thorough research, and strike out the information that we changed. We were told to use reliable source of information- more like a government based site. I believe we visited three sites. We cited all the three sites in MLA bibliography format. The next thing I did was to write design specifications. I had to think a little bit when writing it- since it concerned all of our group members.

Coming to the last section of the criterion D, we were supposed to log into Wikipedia page, and edit it. We did so, just as how the instruction paper told us to. We had to first figure out these codes for writing “in text citation” and other things. We first entered a different category site. Once we got it, we changed it, edited what we had to say, and SAVED it!

But before movign on, let me talk more about the editing process. In the beginning of the project, we sort of had a trouble choosing a topic. We tried various topics such as: transformer, clover field, mongolia, etc. We suddenly thought about Tsagaan Sar, since it was our first week after we came back from the Tsagaan Sar holiday. We printed out what it was written on Wikipedia. As a group, we went over through each information and made notes if they were true or not. I believe we found about three errors! So in order to make sure that it was actually WRONG; we asked several Mongolian students. The next step was to research on the Internet for a correct answer. Now, this point was important since you needed to use a reliable source. Reliable source, as in probably government based sources is what I am talking about. We split the work by making one person take charge of each mistaken information. Next, we were to strike out the incorrect information and write down how we were going to change it. This was mainly what we did for criterion D. Then, we went back to the sites and put them in a correct MLA bibliography format. Finally, just as I’ve mentioned above, we logged into Wikipedia and changed what we had to- and lastly saved the work. All in all, I can’t reallly say we faced any difficulties along the way. This is because we used our time wisely during class the whole time. All of us worked well together- and we were all good supporters for one another. I remember one time when the Internet wouldn’t work fast enough during class, and we had to wait for long time to open up a new site. Other than that, I really enjoyed this project~!

Test the wikiality according to your plans under investigation
There isn’t anything specific that I can write about this work. For the investigation of our project, we first worked as a group and then worked individually. Overall, I think our group has accomplished our goal. I mean, the main goal for this project was to find a mistake in Wikipedia and correct it, by using a reliable source of information. Our group did so; and therefore I believe that we DID accomplish it successfully. Oh! One reason why our project was successful was because so far, I don’t think anybody has changed our work. This means that the readers do agree with what we have added- and therefore they did not bother changing it again!

Evaluate your finished podcast against your own design specifications

After looking back at my design specification from my ‘Design’ journal, I don’t think I fully followed all of them. My design specifications were to include a music in my background, speak slowly and clearly, make it 3-7 minutes, add some sound effects, and try making it sound entertaining and interesting. The only thing that I followed was to make my podcast length 4 minutes long. I could not add any songs or sound effects- because I could not find any appropriate songs to add. On the day I was recording after school; the lab was really noisy. People kept on talking and signing. Due to the time restrictions- I was in a rush- and ended up reading my script quickly.

Evaluate your finished podcast against my design specifications (recorded and published)

The design specification that Ms. Wilson wrote is similar to mine. Her’s reads: i will include music in my background, i will speak slowly and clearly, my podcast will be 20 minutes long, and i will include an interview with… As mentioned earlier, my podcast does not follow any of them. Her time restriction is up to 20 minutes- while mine is from 3-7 minutes long. I guess i did speak clearly but very quickly at most of the times when reading.

Evaluate your work at each stage of the project (A, B, C, D)

I must say that working on ‘investigation’, criterion A of this project was the most annoying part. I spent after school listening to various podcasts and researching ways to publish podcasts. It wasn’t until I noticed that all the things that I wrote in my podcast changed. Even my final investigation was deleted! So many things were getting erased or either altered. (Learner blog did get on my nerves). Getting back to the point, Mrs. Wilson did read what I wrote and therefore I did not have that much of a big problem. I did answer everything that the assignment asked for- and kept all the bibliographies of each site.

Moving on to criterion B; I believe I answered everything that the assignment asked me to do. I tried to make it as detailed as possible. Researching different ways of publishing podcast was a little bit annoying yet somehow hard for me. I don’t have a quick access to the Internet at home. So I decided to save time by working on researching during class and answer all the questions at home. My design got deleted along with my investigation in the beginning. Luckily, I had everything saved onto my network and did not encounter that much of a big catastrophe as last time.

I then made a time-line/ plan of what I did and what I will be doing. I was required to write down all the dates, times, steps, materials and resources. Thinking of what I did for each class was somewhat easy. Planning what to do for each class made me think hard. I tried to follow all of my plans. Indeed, I did follow all of them- except for one time, on February 20^th. I was supposed to record for 20 minutes during class but I couldn’t. Each person was given the time to record for each class- and i decided to do mine during class on Friday. I couldn’t record on this day as well, because I did not have all my researches ready!

Although I didn’t follow all of my criterion C plan; i did actually Then on February 25^th to 26^th, I was able to finish recording my podcast. On the 25^th, I was able to record the first part of my script after school. However, there were other people in the room who kept on talking (making some background noises). I was able to finish my podcast the next morning. I published the podcast during class- right after I finished recording it. I followed all the instructions for criterion D. I had my friends to comment on my podcast.

Test the podcast according to your plans under INVESTIGATION above

The tests for a good podcast for me was: how long is it, how well the person talks (slowly, clearly and energetically), and what it is about. It’s a little difficult for me to test my podcast since it’s actually mine (HEHE). My podcast is short and simple. It doesn’t drag that long for the audience to hear it. Although there isn’t any sound effects or background music to make it more interesting- it helps the listener to concentrate better. I did talk quickly, however if they read along with the script- it will be easier. Because my podcast is an explanation about each blood type-thorough concentration would be good.

Record the results of your tests

Enkhzaya said…

Well,,,your podcast was very interesting..but you were speaking SUPER fast……

12:53 AM  

Anonymous said…

very interesting Jo! i didn’t know that..wow! Good job yo! if possible can you make another podcast like this? bet it would be interesting and cool.

12:54 AM  

Anonymous said…

it’s SUPER dUPER gooiooood
i can’t believe you made it really nicely!
good job, jo!
from saihknaa

Once again, in order to hear my podcast, go to: www.bloodtypesjo.mypodcastcom