Grading Below:
A: 4 while I backed up my statements with the text, they were very vague and "superficial"
B: 2 I hardly talk about FIDDS or SPARS and half the time what I say makes no coherent sense
C: 1 my organization SUUCKKEDDD
D: 4 My language was well used; however, I did use some crutch phrases and fallback words.
Total: 11 points
To be honest, I thought you did a pretty good job for essentially our first attempt at practicing these IOCs. The analysis was pretty detailed and straight-forward, which made it easy to follow; however, I would try to go even further in-depth with some of you explanations and examples. Doing this will also help you get a few extra minutes in there. I would agree that your organization (or lack thereof ;) was all over the place, and I would suggest planing out the order in which you plan to talk about things in a coherent manner. There's always room for improvement, so I would think that your actual IOC will go very well!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris. I would definitely go more in depth with your explanations. Also, maybe try to use more "literary terms." I liked your language. It was really casual and accessible (but intelligent!). The organization could definitely use work. You could maybe try to start by outlining what you're going to talk about, then go through each broad topic and discuss the examples within them. But great start! You definitely made insightful observations!
ReplyDeleteI thought your IOC was pretty good. I really kept pausing in mine. Maybe I would try to focus more on the reader's effects to show more understanding about the text. Your explanations were pretty good, and next time you could add a bit more literary analysis. I enjoyed listening overall because it was really easy to follow along, and I might score you a little higher on category A. 5 would be good too
ReplyDeleteSo I'm not really sure that I would consider 4:32pm "night time", but hey that's an opinion. I think you did a really good job of understanding how point of view has an effect of the reader. When you specifically reference phrases from the text I think you should label them, aka FIIDDS and SPARSE, just to prove that you know what you are talking about. Also, good job catching yourself when you say "I think" and replacing it with fact. Here you are basically saying that what you say is fact not opinion. I think you'll do great on the actually IOC, just remember to back up what you are saying and keep doing what you're doing.
ReplyDeleteI thought you were absolutely mediocre! (I'm kidding, you were great man). Going off of what these fine ladies and gentlemen said, I agree that you were a little jumpy with organization, but the content was all there. Add a little structure and bam that grade jumps way up! We are all a little rough at this, because it's weird, and uncomfortable, but you have the (quote annie) "insightful observations" necessary to create a baseline to score much higher. YOU GO MAN. (ps congrats on the swim meet)
ReplyDeleteI think that your explanation was great but fairly shallow. You're at the 7 minute mark right now so I think if you just reiterated your points with more information then it would be a lot more solid and would earn you a very nice grade with the IB. I liked the language you used for the most part with a couple little slip ups but it was adequate. The structure was a little willy nilly but nothing some outlining on your paper beforehand couldn't fix! great job!
ReplyDeleteOkay so I thought you did a pretty good job with this practice IOC. Like everyone else has kind of hit on is that your structure needs to be a bit tighter. Instead of just going down the rubric and hitting each thing, it is probably better to do a end result like we did in class (but then again what do I know). One thing I did want to point out, that I don't think anyone else did, was that there was a bit where you went in depth about what the deferrals were. I don't think that this is necessary as one would assume that the IBO are well aware of the novel. Anyway I do think that if you had tighter structure and stayed with one or two main points you would do a fantastic job when it comes to the real deal. Good job with this one.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I would probably not end with saying that everything you just said was BS. Probably not a good idea come the actual IOC.