Anyway, on to the point of this blog post. We've been assigned to grade ourselves. I've always been baffled by the effectiveness of this system. When I heard about it in elementary school, I always thought "So I can just give myself 100%?! Awesome!" But I quickly realized that there were underlying conundrums such as etiquette and honesty. On the TED Talk requirement sheet, there are 5 categories, so I will assign each of them 6 out of the 30 total points. So here I go. I'll attempt to do my best here.
The first thing on the list of requirements for the TED Talk is "Four to Five Minutes". I believe that this one is fairly self-explanatory. The presentation should have been between 4 and 5 minutes. In all of my practice runs, I was between 4-and-a-half minutes and 5 minutes. I obviously didn't have the opportunity to time myself on stage, but I think I can safely give myself the benefit of the doubt that I either spoke slightly faster than normal, or was spot-on. I'll give myself a full 6/6 on that one.
The next object on the list is "Visual Component". Now, this is broken up into two subcategories which, for the sake of fairness, I'll break into 3 points each. The first of these is "PPT, Prezi, Other?" I had a PowerPoint-like presentation for mine (I say "-like" because Linux comes with its own Office software called Libre Office, but I think you get the point). Now, I worked on this presentation all throughout Spring break, and during the weekend I got back. I made sure that it was tailored so that the titles, pictures, transitions, and everything else matched up with what I was saying during the presentation itself. I made quite a large effort to use as little text as possible because that is what we've been taught is good throughout our experience with PowerPoint presentations. I confidently grant myself a 2.5/3 in that aspect, granted that it certainly was not a perfect presentation, and should not be treated as such. The next subcategory is "Creative and Supplemental: You drive the presentation, not the visual." Now I think that I could have done a bit better in this aspect. I think that my visual did drive the presentation. Sure, I didn't have any real text-queues on the screen, but the pictures were the things telling me what to say. Does that not entail the visual "driving the presentation"? Thus, I'd say a 2/3 is an applicable grade.
Moving on, the next category is "Content". Now, as this is broken into 4 parts, I don't think I'd be doing any justice by trying to break it up, so I'll just bring all of the subcategories together into one grade. The first subcategory is "Inspire through passion". As not many people are interested in computers, I find it to be quite difficult to do this. I tried to find a way to hook the audience and make the presentation apply to everyone by saying "everyone uses computers" in my first slide. However, I still doubt that I actually inspired anyone. However (again), I did hear quite a few "ooh"s and "aah"s as I set up my computer to present, so I will take that into consideration while grading. The next aspect of "Content" is "Show your product". I immodestly grant myself full credit on this category because... well... I built a computer. I showed my product by presenting from it. I find that to be quite an impressive accomplishment. Next up is "Explain your process". Now, granted that there was only a 5-minute time slot into which we had to try to cram everything, I still think I could have done a better job explaining my process. I probably wouldn't have been able to even get into a little bit of what I did, but I get the feeling I could have done a little more. Finally is "What is your purpose? What should the audience take away from your project?" I think I addressed this pretty well. Near the end of my presentation, I stated that my purpose was to explain that "You need to know what you want/need and how to get it. That way, you'll always have a chance to get it." Judging by the explicit nature of my statement, I think that I got the message across. I'd give myself a 5/6 on the "Content" section because, although I think I got a lot of content in, I certainly could have polished and altered it a little so that I could fit in some more.
Next is "Organization". This entails the presentation having a logical order, from beginning to middle to end. My parents and I spent quite a lot of time editing my presentation so that it actually had a logical story-like order. I started with a (what I hope was a) hook, then I proceeded to talk about my life experience with computers, then on to my experience with the project itself, then on to the application of the project to my life and to others, then finally on to the message that I wanted the audience to take away from it. Then, at the very end, I displayed my final product. I believe that that is a relatively logical order, so I feel confident that a 5/6 is a reasonable grade in this category.
The final category is "Delivery". This entails the presenter being "refined, poised, and enthusiastic". Was I refined? Ehhh... Maybe not so much. I heard the nervous cracks in my voice a couple of times, and I stumbled on my words a little. Next, was I poised? I think that this fits hand-in-hand with the refinement aspect of this category. So, yes and no. I was a bit nervous, so that got in the way of poise a few times. Finally, was I enthusiastic. As many know, I absolutely love computers. I research them day and night on my own time. I don't think of the research as work. It's just fun to me. I think that that love and enthusiasm did carry over into the presentation, even over my monotone voice! Overall, I did know my content from top to bottom, I knew how I wanted to present it, and I tried my best to do so. Nerves just got in the way a little. Thus, I give myself a 4.5/6 in this category.
Summary
"Four to Five Minutes": 6/6
"Visual Component": 4.5/6
"Content": 5/6
"Organization": 5/6
"Delivery": 4.5/6
Total Self-Assessment: 25/30
0 comments:
Post a Comment