Self evaluations on Filipinos
01/02/2012 § Leave a comment
For Criterion A: Knowledge, I highlighted almost everything in the 7-8 band because that is where I feel I belong in terms of my written report on the Philippines. I used a range of terminology accurately and appropriately. More so than in other assignments, I tried to use vocabulary learned from this unit as well as vocabulary from past units. Words that can be found in the report include income, allocate, trend, disparity and anomaly. I also used a range of relevant facts and examples for each indicator I needed to in order to explain my support for my analyses (for Criterion C). I also tried to accurately describe each indicator in the Philippines as well as I could.
I highlighted the qualifiers in the 7-8 band of Criterion B: Concepts; this is where I feel I fall in terms of my work in the Philippines report. Although I know I understand the topic, I think I was able to apply the concepts and show it on the report quite appropriately and with some depth but probably not at the point of sophisticated, using large words and giving insight on things other people may not see, for example. I was able to explain the connections and concepts and apply said concepts to the Philippines for this report.
For Criterion C: Skills (Analysis), I fall again under the 7-8 band judging by my level of analysis in the country report. I know I was able to use a range of relevant information to apply and explain my points on the report. Also, with all the work and thinking and analyzing I did for this report, I think the work showed a good level of critical analysis but perhaps not quite a high level because there just wasn’t enough space in the word limit to do very high levels of analysis. I presented arguments and points that were well supported and balanced throughout the entire report using facts and numbers and focusing on the main point of the report. I also demonstrated effective investigative skills in that I was able to take the Philippines and present potential areas of development clearly.
I fall under the 7-8 band (again) for Criterion D: Organization and presentation. Before writing the report, I was able to organize the report how I felt it would be the clearest and easiest to understand; a before-and-after sort of set up. This made the report well-developed and arranged in a logical sequence. The information communicated in my report was never irrelevant, I made sure of that after four to five edits; the information was always relevant to the report. The presentation and writing was indeed clear, concise, and effective, or at least I’d like to think so, and the language, although a little factual and informative for the audience and purpose was still very clear and straightforward, perfect and always appropriate for an audience that you basically have to guide through the report. And finally, yes, all the sources of information used in the report have been documented according to a recognized convention, aka APA format. Years of NoodleTools and writing APA Resource lists has kind of hammered the habit into us by now.
In any case, stay awesome, readers.