Self evaluations on Kobe

01/03/2012 § Leave a comment

I know I used certain economic terms during my project, especially during my presentation and sometimes in my inquiry report as well but I think I didn’t focus on it as much. This is a mistake I made and I will be sure to use more of the terms and vocabulary we learned in class as much as possible next time. However, my descriptions and explanations are detailed and fully developed, as I demonstrated in my presentation — I clearly understood what I was talking about.

 

The concepts and terms that I did use and refer to were applied very well in an appropriate and sophisticated manner. Even if I only chose a few terms and related to a handful of vocabulary, I tried to go very in depth with them and tried to explore them as much as possible. I was able to connect PACED to my subject very well especially seen during my presentation (towards the second half). Overall, the concepts and vocabulary that I did say I would use – though few – were applied to moving to other countries well in this project.

 

I analyzed a lot during this project – I know that because of the amount of time I spent on Excel trying to find ways to arrange the data or to format it in ways that would make certain parts of the information stand out more than others, etc. I feel that my data was somehow limited – I could have asked more questions about gender, perhaps, so my information was limited. However, my investigative skills, arguments and discussions were fully supported with data and reasoning, also seen through my presentation.

 

The one thing I regret about my presentation is not paying enough attention to my audience. Not strangely, I feel really bad because paying attention to my audience is usually one of my biggest strengths. This time, though, I focused only on the younger audience, my classmates, and totally forgot (not ‘ignored’!) about the possible adult audience that could have come to watch. Little things in my presentation gave me points off, such as the playful titles, and I think that if I had just been more serious with the actual powerpoint, I would have gotten full credit on Criterion D. This is a lesson I definitely won’t forget for my next presentation. Audience counts.

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.

Self evaluations on oil barrels

02/12/2011 § Leave a comment

I think I deserve a 6 for Criterion A: Knowledge because I knew the topic and the subject but did not develop them as much as I could have or did not describe them accurately enough. The majority of my presentation was me trying to explain everything to the audience as clearly as possible but I feel like I didn’t use enough detail and examples in the amount of time I was given – which I know I could have done. I used some economic terminology during my presentation but didn’t explain and define them enough or to the proper extent.

« Read the rest of this entry »

Self evaluations on college

20/10/2011 § Leave a comment

Although I understand the terminology that we learned in the class, I feel that I didn’t command an excellent of use of the terminology and could have applied it better in the essay. Also, I added relevant facts and examples that show understanding but those facts were mostly to support my points and I probably didn’t use a good range of them. Finally, my descriptions were developed, accurate and detailed but they aren’t fully developed. For Criterion A, I think I deserve a 6 or a 7.

For Criterion B concepts, I think I deserve a 6. I did demonstrate awareness of the concepts and described them but I’m not sure I connected them to the subject matter very well. I did attempt to apply concepts to other situations once or twice but yes, maybe they weren’t very successful. However, my application of concepts is appropriate and does show some depth. They show that I do understand the economic concepts but I may not have been very good at showing that in the essay.

For Criterion C, I also deserve a 6. I did select a range of relevant information that assist my arguments. My work shows satisfactory evidence of analyzing scenarios and economic concepts. I can demonstrate adequate investigative skills but not at a level of effective, I think. Finally, my arguments, descriptions and judgements are supported, with my facts and my descriptions, but they are not balanced and unbiased.

I deserve a 7 or 8 for this one. I really do. Well, I think so. I planned my essay very carefully, stating my fine points and the things I wanted to discuss and make clear. I followed this plan til I finished the essay — it’s only inside each paragraph that everything falls apart and lowers my grade. Sometimes my expressions and use of language isn’t very clear to the readers but they made sense to me — however, that’s not the idea. I communicated relevant information, was quite organized, I used a logical sequence that I spent a lot of time developing and my images and visual representations were always appropriate. I used APA formatting to document my sources of information as well.

Self evaluations on death and dancing and spiders

14/09/2011 § 1 Comment

I gave myself a low 9-10 range for this blog post; basically a 9. I think I deserve a nine on MYP criterion A because overall, I know these concepts and I am knowledgable about how it works. I gave a (very) thorough and accurate summary of the activities (maybe it was too thorough and too long but that doesn’t lose me any points so for now, it’s okay). I also provided a complete and correct list of the concepts we covered in both activities in little sections whenever the concepts were mentioned during the post.

I gave Nutcha a comment that I think was pretty helpful because she later came up to me and asked for my help to fix the grammatical errors in her blogpost. I think I helped improve her blogpost. In addition to the ‘way to improve your blog’ comment, I also complimented her on knowledge of her real-world connection and all the concepts.

I was able to connect all of our concepts to the activities we did in class but I feel like it wasn’t thorough enough. Maybe this is because I really should focus on the connecting of concepts instead of the summarizing next time — and I will be focusing on that next time. Also, I thought that my real world connection was quite developed but not to a level that it was fully developed. For example, I covered incentives, income and some consequences, but I could have worked a lot more on opportunity cost and trade-off.

I deserve a 6 for MYP criterion D: organization and presentation. I thought that the majority of the information was relevant; history on the black plague, background on the real-world connection, etc. but there might be a couple of sentences that are unneeded, like the narrations of what happened in class that I could have omitted.

I used a structure and tone during the blog that made it a little bit more interesting to read but was still informative and appropriate to the task. I sequenced the topics chronologically, therefore it is logically organized. It makes sense that I went through the activities and tasks in order of which was done first. I do pay attention to my audience – other students and Mrs. Welbes – therefore I made the reading a little more fun than a normal Economics Blogpost (which sounds boring). The presentations and expressions are clear but I feel that they’re not concise at all. I just think these three blogposts are really long and I want to stop that.

I documented all of my sources, including the graphic images that I thought would brighten up the blogposts (instead of having a lot, a lot, a lot of writing and nothing else) and the articles I read for my real-world connection. As mentioned: I think the language, style and visual representations (images pulled up from Google Images) are appropriate to the audience and purpose. But I still only deserve a 6 because the posts were so bloody long.

Self evaluations on chocolate almonds & economics

31/08/2011 § 1 Comment

I believe I deserve an achievement level of 9. I think I covered all of the concepts that we went over and discussed in class but perhaps it isn’t clear enough to some people. I did try to bold each word so that the reader would know that it’s an important word that the should pay attention to but perhaps it wasn’t enough. As I saw in some blogs, maybe it would be better to write the words down with their corresponding definitions unless the method I used (inserting the vocabulary straight into my paragraphs) already works.

In my opinion, my summary of the class’s activity was rather thorough and very detailed as I think some of the small things mentioned during the activity was important. (For example, it was mentioned at least twice that scarcity must be limited and desirable. Also, we were supposed to allocate the chocolates to only one person and because of this, the resource becomes scarce.) The summary of the class’s activity is also accurate because I made sure to write the blog and note down the events on the day that they happened.

I was able to connect the concepts to the activity quite well, and tried to apply the economics of the activity into every step the class went through. I believe I did that quite well, mentioning the economics terms here and there. I also commented on another’s blog in a way that I thought was constructive and would help them improve their blog. Kohei told me he fixed his blog so I assumed that the comment was helpful.

I did make a real-world connection but I don’t feel that it’s deep enough. I tried to link my research of the film industry to the economic factors that we learned in class and perhaps I reached a level that shows a general understanding of the terms but not yet an in-depth understanding. I mean to say, I was able to pinpoint which parts of PACED the producers went through but I did not try and assess every single possibility that I could have found in the real-world situation. This might lower my grade a bit.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Self Evaluations On… category at i am so.