REMEMBER MAKE A COPY!! Please don’t write in this document!
ALES204 Analysis of An Interview
1. Summary of the content of the interview, including a statement of its purpose:
2. What techniques in the interview made it effective or ineffective? Use the checklist and explain your choice
| Technique | Poor | Good | Excellent | Explanation |
| Articulation |
|
|
|
|
| Description |
|
|
|
|
| Humour |
|
|
|
|
| Pauses |
|
|
|
|
| Pitch |
|
|
|
|
| Pronunciation |
|
|
|
|
| Speed |
|
|
|
|
| Tone |
|
|
|
|
| Variance |
|
|
|
|
| Volume |
|
|
|
|
What do you think of this Interview?
ReplyDeletehttp://archives.cbc.ca/arts_entertainment/media/topics/1793-12587/
Please leave a comment below with your thoughts. Use the above form to critique the interview.
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1FrH0NzZYHxoL7s31JKfyQ1WFjwxni6wpuoBGexCWV2M/edit
ReplyDeleteSydney Killoh
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/19lV89684EznotEHxZgrRigFpE0Snw9mNjkJxRIjhlqs/edit
ReplyDeleteThe interviewee was passionate and enthusiastic about what he was talking about. However, he spoke very fast and was difficult to understand. The interviewer was not so good because he let the interviewee do all the talking and didn't direct the interview. It was hard to understand the purpose of the interview because the interviewer didn't ask enough questions. In a traditional sense, this interview would be considered very casual, but taking into account that this conversation was over the radio, it would make sense that the interviewee would be more dominant in the conversation as he is telling his story.
Danielle Lu
Brenda Le
Julia Doell
Stephanie Nash
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/13H436jVDGGM16THr8IVHZyfJFaTJaBFVZo-IBDyx2eE/edit
ReplyDeleteBianca Cimino
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1m6xrMmyWuJmaJHEHaG-O2BFN5R4ewU7AY6r1kQEjTF8/edit
ReplyDeleteJenna Patterson
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1FupHBAWGjG8SlxJeydAu7DjnSqgrX_4pKk9lGMafthY/edit
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting and informative at the same time! The humour allowed me to stay interested and still obtain the main idea of inflation and it's effects on the Canadian Dollar.
There was a pretty low level of formality in the conversation, there were lots of open-ended questions which allowed the conversation to flow fairly naturally. The questions were very well utilized and I would not rephrase any of them because I thought they flowed nicely. The interviewer picked up very nicely on the cues that were given by the interviewee and they worked off of each other's energy and mimicked the direction the conversation flowed.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1J_I3rDhGlFPFZoqBtwFFtemwjc0T276-o9DiXr1loMQ/edit#
ReplyDeleteNicole Briggs
Cassandra Holte
ReplyDeleteAles 204 Analysis of a Sleeping Cricket Link:
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1IB5YL-rAfAaDk1oA_oWbOww3XY8_fqImx750dS7-Vzk/edit?pli=1
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEmily Dymchuk
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1j07aMAKjiYFexZ4DxoF5WRVwLj8B58zCvfVrFrT5csc/edit
Group Members: Laura McSporran and Shannon Fox
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to our interview summary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DktKA26KRMU6TpuBffw_qc1j6KSlznwRHNS73O7J8Fs/edit
The interview was good, but could have been better by setting up the issue more before hand. We felt lost listening. They seemed very comfortable during the interview, but this subtracted from our understanding of the issue.
It was difficult to hear the questions, so we couldn't understand where there were open/closed questions
DeleteThe level of formality seemed very low, they seemed quite comfortable with each other
There didn't seem to be lots of questions asked; the interview seemed quite story-like
The interviewer read the interviewee's cues; it seemed more conversation like rather than a formally structured interview
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d4J7RsJJtofcGem9EF0woVKEIcrKfY7otMEBM5GU6WI/edit
ReplyDeleteBrittany Stewart, Ainsless Chan, Rheon Fisher, Janessa Sullivan, Carol Amaral, Brittany Stewart
Articulate= excellent
ReplyDeleteDescription= excellent
Humor= good
Pauses= excellent
Pitch= excellent
Pronunciation= excellent
Speed=good
Tone= excellent
Variation= good
Volume= excellent
We found that Stuart McLean was better at articulating, pronunciation and tone. Peter Gzowski was a little more muffled and he seems a little too close to the microphone when he’s carrying out the interview. When Peter was laughing, it seemed that he did not tone down his laugh for the microphone which caused some cracking and feedback, whereas Stuart toned down his laugh to accommodate for the fact that he was in front of a microphone. Overall the interview was quite well done, both the interviewer and interviewee coordinated the conversation well together and were able to maintain an interesting conversation.
Jacqueline Baker and Brenna Wasylenki
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe though the topic of the interview was unclear and did not make too much sense. It could have been better if they made more of an effort to not make as many jokes and focused more on making listeners understand what they were talking about.
ReplyDeleteBrittany Stewart, Ainslee Chan, Rheon Fisher, Janessa Sullivan, Carol Amaral
This interview was interesting to listen to, had a good flow and tone, and was funny. It was dominated by one speaker though which made it slightly unbalanced.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1vmhgxXY-_VRPKkBe_BkK6JJvtUBS2VX7p18EEqGtdbQ/edit
Nicole Luchanski and Pierre Aubin
Analysis in this GoogleDoc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19Umzfi-qH42J1vQes2Q01GbYjoJ7kv_XIRf9vjnAIOc/edit
ReplyDeleteAn interview conducted by both an eager listener and speaker. Could do with some more background into what they were about to explain, a bit hard to follow at first.
Here's a link to my interview summary:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/12bqYmO3CK9iUx2d_JWdctsLQyH5xbkrbbNZsm3JOVpg/edit
Overall the interview was interesting and fun to listen to - however, it was sometimes hard to catch onto what they were saying as they did talk quite fast, and sometimes over each other.
Rohanna Wong
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1A9ugNLclE-nTU7clFwgRuuYFBpYKcyCcF5BSVagvu1U/edit
ReplyDeleteRebecca Miller, Paige Powers, Erica Posteraro
It was a bit hard to listen to the interview because it involved a lot of laughter and seemed to be more of a conversation. It was good that the men were very comfortable, but I think making the interview more of a question and answer type situation would make listening to the audio version easier.
Also, the level of formality was not very high, and if I was the interviewer I would of kept the conversation more on track for people to more easily follow along
DeleteDanielle Becker's and Lynda Forsyth's interpretation of the interview "Sleeping Cricket" with Peter Gzowski:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1s_9mUv1CWZUSjO9NcKwvMlRGF8JUh-qfLRkGzaHUJYc/edit
Our responses to the questions about our own choice interview:
Deletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1d1e4BHLCKh-4WsH42Chfpc5mtcuE1Wi9Uh5n52Ju7e0/edit
Here is my interview summary:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1HseRk-NyIAs9lyJZFQc37A7JMqvkWYDmQw3gIjkhj_0/edit
I enjoyed the interview, however the speed was sometimes hard to keep up with.
Jessica Breda
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1yyV6NdRl62GSxn5_oZqCLLFA_zhz9m943WWLkWYoaTc/edit
ReplyDeleteSamantha Stevens and Angela Zimmerman
The interview was difficult to understand as there was too much background noise and laughter. It was hard to tell who was who because they were talking over each other. Another format for the interview would work better.
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1sGj7safCEajwm5CBQygQHEMhChD7h9FbwP8MAIyIAmo/edit
ReplyDeleteIt's evident that the interview is experienced and comfortable with what he is doing. It makes for an interview that is both fun and informal, but to listen to but a little difficult to understand. A lot of the time the speakers would overlap each other and the content was hard to catch. The interviewer does not use many close ended questions so that the interviewee can answer without being led anywhere. I believe that the interviewer read the cues of the interviewee.
-Rebecca Saul
Articulation: good
ReplyDeleteDescription; excellent
Humor: good
Pauses: excellent
Pitch: good
Pronunciation: good
Speed: poor too fast at times
Tone: good
Variance; good
Volume; excellent
Overall, the interview was good, but I found it was a little abstract. The volume was good but at times I still did not understand what they were saying. One of the speakers voice was muffled at times. They seemed comfortable and enjoying the interview, they kept joking a laughing together which was very pleasant for the listener.
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1Gh3i20IGWfq2skoVRfDJfCiqi1F4G8UC7XNzqV8lCrk/edit
ReplyDeleteThis is my CBC analysis.
The interview is about Peter Gzowski’s things that he purchased for a total of $1.25.
I found it hard to listen to something I wasn't interested about and both the interviewer and interviewee sounded the same.
Jacinta Lin
Here is my interview analysis of A Sleeping Cricket!
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1Uj0zuezWr2EMAQKute6i-Nrr40I1_Cq6-28XniVYVAo/edit
I thought it was a very interesting and fun challenge, and a creative way to get out and understand the value of one dollar. They tried to include humour to keep it interesting, they clearly thought it was hilarious, but I felt a little bit lost. His voice was clear and easy to understand, but I think the topic should have been introduced better - it took me a while to figure out what was going on.
Directing questions were not well used, I felt that the interviewer was not very involved in directing the interview and that the Interviewee took over and just kept talking. It didn't seem like there was any reading of cues between them, the interviewee just kept talking right through thr interview. It was a very informal interview, as they kept getting a bit off topic and bursting out in laughter.
I definitely would have liked to see more more structure to this interview, a better intro to the topic, and have them slow down and have more of a back and forth discussion.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PernhiIUS46PlySOu1OsmBdBrRLi_TdY-7nqAYWeFO0/edit
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the interview, it was humorous and was able to keep my attention, however sometimes the pace of the interview was too fast and hard to understand. As well, the interviewer did not do a particularly good job of asking questions.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eTKF9VS8Nga8Kz0wGeAyso7kqZtAsFoxpDhkrDEX6Rw/edit
ReplyDeleteYunke Xu, Feiyan Zhou, Wenxin Li, Xuechan Yang, Minmin Gao
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgzWcvIxJ-pOdC1hOUhZOUJ2Q1VSa1otbmVnbE9JTlE#gid=0
ReplyDeleteHere is the google docs url for the sleeping cricket interview.
Thanks
Becky and Kendra
There was minimal use of open and closed questions and the level of formality was quite low-the interview came across as very informal and personal, and not very professional. The questions were good but not direct enough, and did not get to the point of the issue. I would have definitely rephrased many of the questions. It is difficult to tell if the interviewer is picking up the interviewees cues since we are only listening to audio, but the interviewer does seem to play off of the interviewees humour, etc.
DeleteBecky and Kendra
Interview analysis for "a 'sleeping' cricket" interview with Stuart McLean and Peter Gzowski:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1wfLuHe5t98EX-nbB8cCJAqGcpUj6VADeM0RHMCbufhE/edit
I found that the interview was extremely difficult to follow, and sounded more like a casual conversation that a structured interview. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing however, as it made the video clip easier to listen to!
Curtis Vieville,vand myself (Josh Perryman) are of the opinion that:
ReplyDeleteArticulation:,Good because some if the words were unclear
Description: Good, it took a while to get to the point and the topic was unclear for a while
Humor: Excellent, they were laughing the whole time
Pauses: Good:,sometimes they were speaking over each other and sentences became melded. O. The whole though pretty good breaks
Pitch: Excellent: was not dull to listen to
Pronunciation: good, as stated before words were a little unclear
Questions:
The majority of questions asked were open questions, allowing fior the listener to answer in their own way
The interview was informal and numerous
Questions asked were acceptable because this interview targeted the genral population. If questions were rephrased or changed then the interview might have targeted a more specific audience.
Speed: poor: made it hard to listen to, and caused for pronunciation and articulation to become unclear
Tone: excellent
Volume: excellent, easy to hear both people
Varince: excellent: was not monotone, nots of emphasis
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1ekjd4YC4-ZCs6KZxjjOGwh4QqmNTpJigfoR3V1xfazM/edit
ReplyDeleteHere is our analysis of the second interview.
Aislinn Chan, Rheon Fisher, Janessa Sullivan, Carol Amaral, Brittany Stewart
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VWG1FCRso7G2hxxIrH3dGp-TT2Z5Ai9A1Zzq5A-sJ0E/edit
ReplyDeleteTaylor Andersen
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I645YG-oEbaRnme3ll3a_fL5l73bTro-G-AKMaY9ZZA/edit
ReplyDeleteStacie Klimow
Word Doc for analysis:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1pV2z1CIuEtoLjkVSA9Z6mAaCeRpQlyPTG-hqQszcPsM/edit
We critiqued an interview on Woodland Caribou legislation. There was a good mix of open and closed questions. My questions were fairly closed, such as: how the idea for the legislation came about and what the benefits are supposed to be. These questions could also be given the interviewee's own personal slant.
The level of formality was quite low, as the original speaker was dressed in a caribou costume and there were some grammatical mistakes in the posted questions.
The questions asked were meant to give an overview of the topic in general, and were phrased well (except for "what is the agreement suppose to do?"). The interviewee could not follow the interviewers cues because it was just a question placed in text on the screen.
Nicole Luchanski and Pierre Aubin
The point of a radio program is to entertain the listener. Entertainment can be defined in a variety of ways ranging from news, to informative talk, to humor. The 'a sleeping cricket' interview entertained the listener through humor and informative talk. The interview discusses inflation and and what one dollar can purchase today compared to 1973. Even though the interview was very entertaining and informative there are several areas that can be improved. The interviewer jumped right into the interview without giving background information on what they were discussing. This makes it difficult for the listener to be engaged right away. A little background information before the interview goes along ways in engaging the audience. Once the listener knew what the interview was about the enthusiasm and humor portrayed by the people involved allowed the audience to be entertained. For a complete analysis of the interview please visit the link to my Google document.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1HUjjyx2kJ4KhVvAVvy0xpvACL56d4_JTVV8F4Rs6FW0/edit
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1tXE851LVLTVA7OrFvDS51FMivL0Txujj78oihN17y4s/edit#
ReplyDeleteAlana Soderberg and Kelsey Rutar
Link to Google document by Andria Carlyon: https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/pub?id=1Hj3SlTmxgxNq-dUnmVekF5em9BiUB5vdv7x4v1B2SfQ
ReplyDeleteAnalysis of Sleeping Cricket interview
It was interesting but confusing to follow. It could have been done better to follow along and understand easier.
Here is my selected interview which is between Larry King and Michelle Obama. They are both very good speakers and interviewers as they should be.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBc33UjvDU
Here is the link to my Google docs analyses of the interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBc33UjvDU
Thanks
Becky
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nxYsi5PhYLy4gsBnCWKUOGf4D76GR6caeRcyCkqdpp8/edit# the radio program of the sleep crick is not a good example of interview, it talks so fast, so the employer cannot easy to understand.
ReplyDeleteThis is our analysis of "The Sleeping Cricket" interview.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1pW30Ck8kwt0XPzZA_oCxWVIskUUUgo8A5Ofm0l66tww/edit
On its own, the interview was very well done, aside from the very quick speaking.
Hau Ying Leung, Yinglin Huang, Alexander Bautista
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1dGzxHx4rkB8susQMtlgw5lcyeConHSM8mnc919pl3FI/edit
ReplyDeleteGoogle doc link.
Thanks,
Layla
Rui Li
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/18AMRZGj6YBJSyNEW70hNfh6myz9Al0TXvO8ACHZEU1o/edit
I dont think is a good interview. Its confusing and it talks too fast.
Analaysis of sleeping cricket interview
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1c5BySAe-jkAYd2J_CYlXJi32RKmeXOALWBLS2eO0Lz8/edit#
Might not be a cup of tea for everyone but it was fast and charasmatic tools that in my opinion make good interviews.
Lucas Poitras
This is our analysis of a section of an interview with Mark Zuckerberg (2010)
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/10Qbf3QZEfkOXzYMg7b3sJnSMqyYavJ9wS2YPNWpA0hs/edit
Mark Zuckerberg was put on the spot with open questions about his Facebook privacy policy changes and thus led to a decline in the quality of his responses and his composure throughout this section of an interview done in 2010.
Hau Ying Leung, Yinglin Huang, Alexander Bautista
Xinru Ye
ReplyDeleteThis is the analysis for the interview.
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=13681581aecc0e1b&mt=application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3De142e2f9cc%26view%3Datt%26th%3D13681581aecc0e1b%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26realattid%3Df_h0ngw5ai0%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTA6aQIbFk22qk-qkf1YRaIzI3Uxg
Here is the interview analysis.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/14ydoSK_lwFKo65V67s9CfsoeCFKSVkajp4uTmfLOMbk/edit
Here is my interview analysis
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1quhOBIgQcm9uaS5b2i7Dq8B03L1t_WEGJu9nWkK3H0o/edit
Here is the link:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1q_aF8CLzLAmdqaUf0kJJnbLpXzQjNKOIFS5BgJOz31w/edit
Nian Liu
The interview analysis:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1aBoMg_GGSS5FUxfqEDURXmwpdzrON12JaFXPY4hb8Kw/edit
Seemed like a good conversation between pals but I was confused for a large portion of it.
Jasveer Brar
I listened to quite a few of Marion Nestle`s interviews. She is a food politics advocate and very well educated in the nutrition field. All of her interviews are interesting to listen to as she is very well spoken and knowledgeable. The particular interview that I analyzed was Marion talking with the Barilla center for food and nutrition about food politics and the impacts of nutrition.
ReplyDeleteinterview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBR2A-6qpjQ
analysis: https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1Mue8MiIlumy4GlnJeZUH5bLdP8UPaRO3YUiU2HFagik/edit
Here is our analyses of both the sleeping cricket interview and Kristen Bell's interview with Ellen DeGeneres.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link
https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1qm83E2b89aWfsr_bBZNI8Pc5pyb1MqjD6sj_EavzAl4/edit
Thanks,
Jenn W. and Jami F.
The sleeping cricket interview:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/document/d/1XVslpqcOZcz0TgGbUkj4KfeuNPjPLQ0uUp96wpR8FYY/edit#
Tanya Tompolski