For Criterion A: Knowledge, understanding, interpretation, I awarded myself an 8. In hindsight, while listening to my IO, I believe there are good knowledge and understanding of the extracts and the works/texts and a sustained interpretation of their implications in relation to the global issue. The themes of the works, ‘Green Rice’ and ‘The World’s Wife,’ are mentioned, and thoughtful comments are made to reason how the bigger themes of the works may have contributed to the themes of the individual texts chosen. Additionally, references to the extracts were carefully chosen based on relevance to support claims made in the presentation.
For Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation, I awarded myself an 8. The analysis and evaluation developed on the foundation of the global issue, and only the most relevant authorial choices were discussed. At times, the analysis and evaluation were insightful, especially the exploration of the use of commas, in which two interpretations were offered. Thus, a thorough and nuanced understanding of the authorial choices were given.
For Criterion C: Focus and organization, I awarded myself a 9. I paid careful attention when developing my line of argument, ensuring my global issue is the main focus of my IO. I made sure to use effective transitional phrases, repeated my global issue, and intentionally indicated key terms in my global issue throughout, such as “patriarchal society,” “fear,” “mothers,” and “daughters.” This not only helped me to maintain a clear and sustained focus but also aimed to guide the listener. The treatment of the two extracts was well-balanced, given that each text explored three authorial choices, and each exploration lasted around 4 minutes. During the five-minute questioning, equal attention was given to both texts. The authorial choices were also ordered in a way to deepen understanding in a logical manner: the scope moved from a more general discussion to subtle techniques and interpretations.
For Criterion D: Language, I awarded myself an 8. The language I used is clear and accurate. Although there are word choices that could have been enhanced, these occasional errors did not hinder understanding. Some vocabulary/phrases that I was proud of were “sly deceptiveness,” “momentary protection,” “alliterative and sarcastic,” “animalistic,” “fallen victim to the patriarchal society,” etc. The tone throughout the IO was suitable for the task, and intentional pauses and emphasis were included when reading text evidence, especially when reading the evidence for Duffy’s use of active voice.
Generally, I felt confident having prepared for the IO and lucky that I was able to develop a sustained presentation by Monday (as the first risk-taker!). However, for my final IO, I would like to have some clarification on the five-minute question part. How should I approach the questions? How long should I take to respond? Should I quote in my response? Etc.