Presentation Guide:

First we will talk about how the medium of radio has changed throughout its history. This will trace the history of radio as both a medium of information and entertainment. It will also include the struggle to transition with the advent of the television. Finally, this will include the future and internet radio.

Next, we will talk about internet "trash talking." This will include the effects of the microphone, integration of speaking into online networks, and the demographic shift of internet trash talking to gamers.
Another topic we will talk about is presidential debates, specifically televised presidential debates. We will talk about the effect television had on these debates, and how they influenced the American people.

The next subject we will talk about will be a very influential speaker, but not in a good way, Adolf Hitler. We will talk about how Hitler was able to influence people, and how he was able to use speech to rally behind him.

Finally we will talk about political speeches in general in America since the advent of the television. We will address how these speeches have changed, and the influence of the speeches, as well as how they have influenced the political culture of today.

After we have talked about these topics, we will do a group activity showing both the importance of oral communication and how the other types of communication affect it. This will involve all of the elements in WOVEN.

Resources:

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-presidential-speech-on-tv - This article details the history and affects of the first televised presidential speech.

http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/1/58.abstract - This site details the abstract of an argument involving the effects televised speeches have had on public opinion.

http://earlyradiohistory.us/ - This site describes the history of the radio in relation to the history of the United States. It's basically a timeline for the radio.

http://inventors.about.com/od/rstartinventions/a/radio.htm - It details the inventions and technological progression of the radio.

http://www.walkie-talkies.com/walkie-talkie-history.html - An article that talks about the history revolving around the invention of the walkie-talkie.

Dunlap, Orrin Elmer. Radio and Television Almanac. New York: Harper, 1951.

http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/history/ - Article that details presidential debate history, and talks about early presidential debates.

http://themobilelearner.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/modern-technology-and-the-return-of-oral-

communication/ - Article that talks about how technology has brought back oral communication.

Thoughts on Scientific and Technological Writing

Wyatt Gouldthorpe

Who exactly should science and technology be written for? Should it be written for everyone to understand, or should it be written only for experts in a particular field? This question obviously does not have one correct answer. If I asked three different people about this I am sure I would get three different responses. With this being said, I believe that science and technology should be written for both the experts and common people. This means that there should be writing meant for experts, that only experts can understand, but there should also be “dumbed down” writing for the common people. I believe that articles in peer review journals and for use in high level classes should be written for experts to understand, because in this case the material needs to be complicated to show all the complexities of the topic. However, writing for the general public should be for everyone to understand. The reason for this is that writing for everyone to understand will increase the knowledge of the general public, which will have a positive effect on society.

I think it is important to strike a balance between scientific writings being detailed enough to facilitate expert knowledge and general enough for public consumption. The main reason for this is that there should be resources both for many people to have basic knowledge on the subject, and for a select group of people to have expert knowledge on the subject. However, for each individual writing, the style is determined by the intent of the author. If the author intends for his writing to be reviewed by other scientists, or for it to be read by people in college campuses that are interested in studying the topic in question, then the writing should be the typical paper with complicated concepts and vocabulary that is hard for the average person to understand. On the other hand, if the author intends to teach people that have no idea about this topic, the writing should probably omit the complicated concepts and vocabulary, and replace them with concepts most people can understand. Therefore, when looking at a writing on science and technology, it is important to keep both the purpose of the writing and the intended audience in mind in order to determine if the writing is effective.

Science and Technology Writing

Science and technology can be a quite hard topic to write about. If one was to write about science and technology, one must make sure to not bore individual readers to death. It's a thin line between interesting facts and factual boredom. I honestly prefer authors to write about science and technology in a more narrative fashion that is easy to read. Basically I feel as if informal scientific writings are an overall better read than formal ones.
Scientists are not the only niche that science and technology writings can appeal towards. There are many different sorts of people 0ut in the world that appreciate science and find scientific writings very interesting. It is for this reason that scientific writings should not be so factual that ordinary people not in scientific fields of studies can not understand them. This isn't to say that these writings still can't have facts, but these facts should be introduced in moderation and carefully elaborated upon. This is how scientific and technological writings should be made.

Formality in Scientific Writing

I think there is room for a broad range of writing styles focusing on science and technology. On the one hand, professional writers or journalists produce some of the most pleasant reading about science. For example, Bill Bryson’s conversational tone and informal language make reading his work easy and enjoyable, while still conveying accurate information. For anyone without extensive background knowledge or intense interest in the subject, I would argue that this is the best form of writing. Writers, while making sure their facts are correct, should not fear the scorn of professional scientists when providing easily digestible scientific knowledge. It may only give a shallow explanation of things, but for most people, that is all they care to learn, and if the piece is well written, they will actually learn it.

At the same time, there is need for technical writing about science, by scientists for other scientists. In order to fully understand a lot of science (to the point where you could design new experiments and spot links between occurrences without any direction), a technical vocabulary is necessary. For the sake of clarity, the simple analogies and even the colloquial discussions may need to be abandoned. The result should be a clean and clear (to the scientific community) piece of writing, which would be the most effective in giving the target audience what it needs for full comprehension. This type of writing may seem excruciatingly dense to non-scientists, but for those actually working with the technologies involved, the first type of writing I discussed would be hopelessly inadequate. I don’t think that there is a ‘right’ way of writing about science and technology, or a ‘right’ audience to be writing to. However, it is absolutely essential that the author of any specific work knows his or her audience, and writes accordingly. Similarly, readers should understand the limitations of whatever it is they are reading, and acknowledge that there is much they will not learn from it. 

Scientific Writing vs Public Comprehension

 Writings that have a main focus of science and technology should not be limited to one particular group.  Although scientists will have better understanding of the topics and be able to include more precise details either from experimentation or experience, when writing to people other than scientists, the author should be someone else.  Scientific discoveries and technologies need to be spread to other scientists but must also be shown to the public.
 Scientific writings need to be more generalized for the average reader and give an easily comprehendable writing style.  Without a science background, the general public would not be able to fully understand the writings that are published by sceintists.  I believe that the writings should be done by more of a "reporter" who is able to speak directly to the scientists and convert what they say into a more public friendly wording.  This will allow for the public to be able to read AND understand what breakthroughs are occuring in the scientific and technological community.  

Writing on Science and Technology

Science and technology are not by any means restricted to one way of writing or the other. Instead, depending on the audience it should be written formally or informally. Not all scientific writings are written formally. Sometimes writing an explanation or detailed report informally helps translate meanings and results easier than if they were to be written formally. On the other hand, writing formally has its benefits as well.
With that being said, there are certain audience types your write to formally and certain audience types you write to informally. For instance, if you were writing about science and technology to a professor, writing formally is probably in your best interest. Likewise, generally speaking, when writing to a broad audience it is always better to be safe and write formally. Writing formally does not include writing to your friends or family. In this instance, you would probably want to write informally. Writing informally to someone you know and understand can be advantageous. You can say and do things with words that normally you would not be able to do formally. Regardless, I feel as though writing formally or informally is based on the audience you are writing to; there is no “set –in-stone” way to write to everyone.