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