IO Feedback Comparison

This post is to compare the actual score I got and the one I anticipated for myself.

I was the more generous one when grading my own IO, I felt like I had a good understanding for the text, and my teacher, Mr. Dalton, certainly felt that as well. However, I didn’t do a good job in presenting my understanding for these, I didn’t pick out enough textual evidence to support my argument and thesis. This lead to a misrepresentation of my understanding and caused the A and B to go down. My tone was actually alright and it enhanced the presentation of the GI. I would pick out more textual evidence from both texts and give analysis on both the literal meaning and the broader meaning that it presents. I will pick out the evidences in advance and have my peers check my presentation quite long before IO to ensure changes can be made based on feedbacks.

IO #3 Reflection

Listening back to the third IO practice, we graded our own work using the key words and phrases from the official rubric.

A: 8
The understanding and knowledge of the entire work and the specific extracts are “good”, and I the interpretation is “sustained” in terms of relating to the global issue. Moreover, the literary evidences I picked out from the texts “effectively supports” my analysis, being the most appropriate ones in the extract given.

B: 7
The analysis of the authorial choices are “relevant and at times insightful” where I gave my personal interpretation of each textual evidence picked. One place where I could possibly improve on is the “understanding of the authorial choices”, I feel like some points in my presentation are a bit forced or stretched.

C: 6
The time taken on each text was not “balanced”, but the depth and significance of analysis are well maintained throughout that my presentation was “focused and sustained”. The presentation follows a “cohesive structure” that enhances the main points.

D: 7
The words used were “clear and accurate”; there were errors in language that “do not hinder communication”; “vocabulary and syntaxes are varied” as I used many different sentence structure. I accented the evidences that “enhance” the presentation.

 

What went well:

I did quite well in terms of timing my presentation and limiting the amount of information that I present. I only put forth relevant analysis of the texts which would probably raise my grade in strand A, focus and interpretation.

 

Improvements:

There are many more things I need to work on for the next IO. The analysis, for example, is an inevitable aspect that will be affected by the process of trimming down points of analysis. Moreover, my structure was somewhat unbalanced where I spent a bit too much time on the Kafka text. Finally, I would like to improve my speech so that it is more fluent and I would fit more content into it.