IO Practice Reflection- January 22, 2021

This is my IO recording (length is 6 minutes and 41 seconds):

My total for each section, in alphabetical order, is (8 + 7 + 7 + 8 or 9)/40 = 30 or 31/40.

Criterion A: Knowledge, understanding and interpretation – This would be because for knowledge and understanding, when listening to myself, I could tell what context was, how the text compared to another, what Rezkallah’s purpose was and how various elements of the image helped achieve this, etc. However, I did feel that it was not too ‘persuasive’ and so didn’t deserve the top band, and so I gave this 8/10.

Criterion B: Analysis and evaluation – I felt that even though the analysis was present, it was definitely lacking. For the first time, due to the fact that I was rushing through some elements of the text I meant to analyse, I couldn’t unpack things more than I could were I writing this. There was both micro (posture of models, cosmetics, pronouns, etc) and macro (overall theme, societal expectations and perspectives, context and how society has changed/paradigm shifts, etc) analysis was present, just the structure and time management could do with some improvement. Thus, I thought that although it wasn’t as low as band 3, it definitely was not ‘thorough’ as requested in band 1, so I decided to go with a low band 2, and think that if I was being harsher, I’d give myself a mid band 3. However, I went easy on myself, so I gave this 7/10.

Criterion C: Focus and organization – I felt that due to my first time doing this, it was hard to stay on track. Keeping the notes in order, looking at the time now and then, going over time and getting worried – these were just a few of the things that were challenging in this first IO. About the mark, I’d put myself in band 2 again, as even though it was ‘balanced’ with not a lot of deviation (signposting was used as well), it was not too ‘convincing’ (or ‘persuasive’, as I said previously). I do think that it could have had a more ‘sustained’ focus, and that there could be a better overall structure to this, but I would not go to band 3 as there were tons of references back to the main global issue about gender inequality (how the evolution of gender and sexuality is explored through advertisements) – time and time again I have linked the effects and explanations of the micro-analysis, for example ‘misogyny’, ‘societal expectations’, ‘hypocritical public perception of gender’, ‘fresh, new perspective (compared to) old, derogatory perspective’, ‘misrepresentation of women in old ads’, etc. Thus, because some sentences seemed random and some trailed off, but still there was a lot of connection to the global issue throughout, I would give this a 7/10.

Criterion D: Language – Lastly, I felt that the language was actually quite ‘clear and accurate’ as I definitely dodged an informal tone when I could, and presented the essay as if I was reading it out loud with some questionable improvisation here and there. There were occasional fillers, but only a few times did they noticeably hinder communication (like with the long, complex sentence about the male model and what he was wearing – that one trailed off and was not actually a sentence, just a weird exclamation). However, the vocabulary and syntax were varied (“elaborate articulation”, “depicts/portrays/entertains/informs/etc.”, many complex sentences with average execution, many connectors, signposting, etc). Elements of style were the one part where I could have played around more, especially with the rhetorical devices, but I felt my voice was not monotone (for once), and that the register was almost always formal, as mentioned above. That’s why I would give this section 8/10 or 9/10, based on what one interprets to be ‘varied’ syntax, and because I lacked some rhetorical devices.