Here is the audio recording of my mini IO on Wire by Paul Nash.
My table-mate, who can be heard asking me a question in the recording, assessed me on the class rubric like so:
I then used the IB rubric and assessed myself like so:
I only spoke for 3 minutes 30 minutes out of the maximum 5 minutes, which really show how I need to do more analysis (Criterion B). I could do more analytical description of the techniques used, or go more into depth as to the impacts the techniques have. In my mini-IO, I just summarised the effects in about a sentence.
However, one thing I did well was bring in a lot of analytical vocabulary. For example, I described how the monochrome gray clouds create a sombre mood in the painting, which is an example of pathetic fallacy.
All in all, I think doing this mini IO was a good learning experience.
There are some fantastic nuanced points here, and you cover a range of points.
Thoughts
Start with the issue: I think here you are talking about technological progress? So, ‘my focused issue is how technological progress can in fact damage humanity’
You don’t really introduce Nash or the body of work. Who is he, what did he do, what is the body of work, what are the main themes etc.
What is the impact of the subversion – there could be more on effect here (and elsewhere – the pathetic fallacy etc.)
I didn’t ever get a feeling of the overview of the text – a charcoal landscape of a tree enmeshed in wire. Analyse the macro too.
I think:
A:7, B:7, C:7, D:8
Maybe 6 for A.- not enough on rest of body of work?