"Last year we did a project of student podcasts in collaboration with the EOI Elda. Those podcasts are available to listen in flipgrid and in wakelet, here.
Your task is the following one:
a) Choose one of the podcasts from episodes 1 and 2 (not the personal introduction ones at the beginning).
b) Listen to it and fill in the attached rubric with your assessment of the said podcast.
c) Send me your filled in rubric through here as an attached document / file. You don't have to 'write' on top of it necessarily: you could just make a word document with your ticking, circling and commenting.
Special thanks to María Fernández, from EOI Pontevedra, for the rubric. As it is designed for face-to-face presentations, you may ignore the sections for 'body' and most of 'delivery' (you can measure vocal variety and expression)."
________
So I chose the first one available that was not me.
I remember listening to it last year (well last April, in the last academic year) and found it not quite to the standard I was expecting. I am not sure what level Student X was at, but to me he was not at C level.
The podcast was meant to be an "Exam Like Monologue", which is quite hard since we obviously had more than a few minutes to prepare, but hey, that was no one's fault.
But ...
Instead, Student X chose to write some sort of non-cohesive essay and just read it to us. I am not even sure if he wrote the piece himself, the reading was so poor and so lacking in proper rhythm and pace that it sounded like he was just seeing it for the very first time in his life.
Choc-a-block full of exam like expressions, like inversions and connecting words, but each one sounded as forced as labouring in a gulag camp. And that was its only redeeming grace.
This is my rubric:
Well, there goes a non-trivial amount of carnage, both in the mangled production and in the ruthless but fair assessment. We could start a butcher's shop today! xD
ReplyDeleteI see a comment of yours from last year that is a little bit more charitable, but holds the gist of it. And as I said, I think the assessment is quite precise and accurate. I must confess (and that's a liability, not a redeeming trait) that I have difficulties at being so sincere (at least in the class; in the exams it is made easier by the fact that, as you know, we don't assess the oral production of our own students), when it is usually necessary to help a lagging student to refocus on starting from scratch with what can be realistically improved within our time and study limitations. In the case of this production, for example, either polishing the fluency and/or better organizing and presenting the ideas would go a long way.
One thing I failed to point out: Student X gets a ten out of ten for trying, which is more than many others did bother with.
DeleteShowing up takes guts and that should be appreciated.
I do sometimes have problems dealing with the disparity in student commitment, and with the disparity in student real language levels within the same level too. I guess that it is the nature of the beast. Some students are very good at learning and practicing just the things that will get them past the line, forgetting to properly learn and use the language.
I do hope that he got some good feedback and that he learned from the experience. Surely he did.