Plan for WP3: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Introduction_to_BEC.htm

The academic text I will be using is an MIT research paper about Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC),  a man-made substance that could possibly be the coldest stuff in the universe.  The article gives a broad overview of BEC including its scientific uses, the history behind the theory, and how to make it. Since there are so many subsections of this article, it will be easier to translate into the various genres that will be used for the analysis.

The first idea for a younger audience I have in mind is to translate the article into a typical humble-brag Facebook post that young people post after achieving some form of success in thier lives that everyone needs to know about. The post will be posted by the MIT professor that led the research team for these BEC discoveries. The post will incorporate conventions of modern Facebook posting, including smiley emojis, hashtags, location data, and tagging friends. There will possibly be an attached picture showing off the final lab results. Comments from various people of various tones will follow, including other scientists that helped to create these scientific theories that led to his discoveries. Comments will also be of Facebook commenting convention, except written by other scientists. Some will be happy, some will be fake-happy, and some will be passive aggressive: basically typical Facebook comments commonly seen under a long, self-centered Facebook post. A young audience should be able to recognize and identify with this idea.

For the older people, I will translate the article into a recipe from a cookbook or a cooking website. Instead of some sort of food, the recipe describe in detail on how to create BEC from scratch. The MIT article has a procedure section with pictures and descriptions that portray the experiment in meticulous detail. Instead of a research paper genre, it will be described in a recipe genre.  The abstract will become the descriptive paragraph above the recipe highlighting the features of the dish. The experiment materials become ingredients and the experimental procedure will be rewritten in a step by step list utilizing jargon that is relevant to someone cooking food. There will be pictures within the recipe and as well as the end with a gallery of the complete "dish" .

I'm probably going to make a composite photo of each translated genre piece after writing all of it down as a draft somewhere. This way, I can also utilize the visual genre conventions. The Facebook post will have the visual appearance of a real Facebook post and the recipe will look like it came out of a cookbook. The original text looks difficult to read because of the lack of formatting and puzzling jargon, but translating the genre visually should be able to highlight the concept of genre.

Painting Trees

Bob Ross talks about what he's doing in very fruity descriptive language as he paints. The Family Guy parody makes it recognizable that he's being portrayed because they put in all his moves, like standing in front of a nature scene and talking about all the little things he puts into the painting.

The Disney artists all have different first interpretation of the tree. It comes across in the different art styles that they put onto the painting. Each person has a different metaphor they compare the tree to (building, portrait, etc). Everyone paints the same tree except each person states what part they want to highlight the most and how that affected their artistic choices like colors and types of paint.

When each painter says what they are doing as they move the brush, they are describing the moves. The emotion or shape that they describe to apply for each artistic technique is the reason behind the move. Each one is unique to each painter and the finished product reflects the use of different moves across all the paintings.

My Thoughts and Questions on WP3

So many choices of what to possibly do for WP3. I hope someone doesn't jack my ideas that I put out in PB3A. Creativity is probably a very big part of this project and most of the time will most likely be spent thinking about what to do (or choosing which option to take). Option 1 seems like a more interesting choice because breaking down articles and analyzing them has been done too many times in previous writings.

Journal Q&A

Which 2 or 3 comments that you received yesterday were the most helpful for you? Why?

I received multiple comments on regarding concepts I thought I explained previously in the paper but didn't. Having someone else read it and call it out was helpful because it isn't obvious to me about what things are confusing to someone reading for the first time


What did you think about yesterday’s digital Peer/Reader Review sesh? Better/worse/same as the “old school” hard copy one? Please explain!

I think it was more effective the the first one because making comments directly onto their document makes it simpler to make corrections. Also, multiple people reading and reviewing at the same time gives more feedback.

So, in the end, how’d your WP2 paper go? What were you happy with? What weren’t you? Why? Be specific! (Remember: this is fodder for your end-of-quarter metacognitive reflection)

I think I did better in WP1 because i felt like I had more things I could write about. For WP2, I was struggling to find things to write about to make it substantial without sounding repetitive. On the other hand, I was able to find interesting sources for WP2 so it was interesting because each of the sources were so different.