GROUP / CURRIC / STUDENT

A

T1

T2

T3

T4

E

F

M

A LL  
ALESSIO DE ANGELIS 
245562

4

4

A LL  
GIUSI NATASCIA DRAGO 
243522

4

3

A LL  
MARCO DI DIODATO 
243507

4

1

Too little, only one parameter is not enough.

A OI  
ELETTRA TERRINONI 
MATR. ?

4

3

A OI  
STELLA WIRTH BENEDETTI 
236119

4

4

3

Excellent definition of problem; no solution!

B LL  
CECILIA MARILUNGO 
234714

4

3

3

4

3

B OI  
MARTA PRANZETTI 
243644

4

5

5

Good application and questions that probably would work.

4

One of the best communicative translations but metatextual poor.

5

Well thought out, conclusions a bit short

B OI  
PAMELA STELLA 
243712

4

3

4

Excellent but scanty

3

Great start, poor conclusions.

B LL  
CHRISTELLE TREUTENS 
MATR. ?

4

4

4

B OI  
DONATELLA VINCENTI 
243429

4

4

3+1=4
good criteria

4

Very acute analysis. But questions will not change interlocutors, no feasible way out! Sartre's Huis Clos.

4

B OI  
FRANCESCA VITAGLIANI 
243245

4

3

2

Only common sense observations; a U. course should foster in-depth analysis.

3

Meta-textual does not mean writing poetry!

3

Clever questions but seemingly preconceived answers

C LL  
VERONICA INDELISANO 
MATR. ?

4

1

No real application of Beamer, argumentative instead of showing understnading, sloppy writing and presentation.

C LL  
SIMONA MARCHETTI 
235509

4

3

Good defense of students; poor understanding of other side.

D LL  
SERENA MARIONI 
235101

4

D LL  
BARBARA MICELI 
235032

4

4

2

D LL  
ELISA NORMANNO 
235961

4

D LL  
ERIKA TINELLI 
209737

4

4

2

Interesting questions but not at all as useful to solve conflict as those in papers with a 4 or 5. Poor British academic paper style.

D LL  
IRENE VECCHIOTTI 
243095

4

4

good criteria

2

Less precise terms and concepts

D LL  
MARIA ZANNETTINO 
235699

4

4

3

Regalto, as you say in Italian, because of the form. But comments good.

4

Semantic good
Communicative
exaggerated

3

E OI  
TATIANA BATTISTI 
242840

4

4

E OI  
ASSUNTA BELLEZZA 
246093

4

2

E OI  
LAURA LUCARELLI 
240254

4

4

3

Analisi interessante ma manca la parte applicativa (le domande ai 2 protagonisti., le attività da far fare a loro

E OI  
FRANCESCO TOMASSI 
349206

4

3

insuff.
criteria

5

I don't feel you grasped the hear of the problem, but you applied the cultural dimensions with great technical expertise.

F OI  
ANTONELLA ADDIS 
246133

4

3

Fairly
verbatim

2

“ostenteresti” detta da una borgatara?!?! Non molto comunicativa. La trad. semantica cosntiene errori.

F OI  
SERENA GRAZIOSI 
243032

4

4

Fairly
verbatim

4

Excellent and subtle analyisis of Francesca, less so for Patrick (but perhaps I don't see myself as clearly as you)

F OI  
NICOLE SANTINI 
245198

4

4

L2 -1 generic criteria

2

Insufficient questions, schematic analysis

F OI  
FRANCESCA MOLISSO 
243178

4

4

Good albeit artificial interaction

3

Good summary, poor solution

4

Good communicative translation

1

MC 4; a café conversation of no academic value

G OI  
ELISABETTA FIDANI 
228069

4

4

Good (Less veratim)

4

Good presentation of Beamer but poor application. Questions: good but too few. Still one of the better attempsts.

5

5 is “regalato” because you forgot the Intent tags for the metatextual translation. But it was excellent and the others really top notch.<<

5

5 is “regalato” because you didn't really provoke an incident, but the report was so intelligently and accurately done that you get your Monoglino d'Oro anyway.
Audio Tape OK

2

G LL  
MAGDALENA HERZYK 
239549

4

5

unfair

3

G OI  
PAMELA LUCIOLI 
238419

4

4

fairly verbatim

5

A little “regalato” but it was a genuine application of Beamer with questions that probably would produce an effect.

4

c'è chi può is very effective communicatively

3

Well done, thoughtful, as you said: the form is quantitative but not enough interviewees. Next time get someone to correct your syntax for “bella figura”.

2

G OI  
MAURILIA MENICHETTI 
234537

4

5 !!

verbatim

3

More “common sense” than use of Beamrer or concept of Weltanschauung.

3

Well organized paper but not academic style

2

G OI  
ROBERTA STIRPE 
235085

4

4

Verbatim
but good criteria

1

Non incisive questions, some banal, unrealistic conclusions, ignored British academic writing style, last part in Italian.

4

A very intelligent, thoughtful inquiry, although some questions are misleading. You didn't follow Anglo style: 1. conclusions (brief), 2. data, 3. discussion, 4. elaborated conclusions; you put: 1. conclusions, 2. data... stop.
Tape interview: well cone.

G OI
ANNARITA DE GAETANO
235372

2

H LL  
MARTA FALASCONI 
243321

4

H LL  
VALERIA FRATTAROLI 
245314

4

H OI  
ANIKO FUREDI 
ERA 4089

4

5

unfair

4

Good diagnostic.
Solution???

3

False register: adolescente, lodatele; false sense: a voglia

3

Should have been prepared better, with alternative questions.Comments good.

3+3

=6

3

28

I OI  
FRANCESCA BERARDI 
236147

4

4

no tape

4

Actually 3 but + 1 for the very professional presentation.

4

Poor metatextual translation but an excellent communicative one.

2

Not British or American academic style; exposition more impressionistic than scientific

I LL  
MARTINA GHERARDI 
243551

4

L2

4

Well written but defensive

I OI  
CINZIA LARA PETRUCCI 
235590

4

5

no tape

4

Sensitive and perspicacious; style just barely British academic

4

Comunicative and metatextual translations are inverted by mistake, right? (If not, 2 points!!!!)

2

Very interesting comparison but where are the provocation and then the solution for the critical incident?

I OI  
RAMONA MELIS 
238444

4

4

no tape

K LL  
MARA FRASCA 
MATR. ?

4

5

unfair

2

K OI  
CORINNE LEBRUN 
101602/59

4

5

unfair

4

good empathy

K LL  
SERENA VALLECORSA 
244003

4

L LL  
LATIFA GUENNAS 
MATR. ?

4

2

pronunciation
not so bad!

2

Only common sense remarks - a U. course should foster in-depth thinkings

3

L LL  
MARCO RUSSO 
233694

4

3

justification missing

2

L LL  
AURORA SANTINI 
235084

4

3

The most intelligent presentation

5

Too few questions but top mark because analysis is the most original

2