University of Rome III - Degree in Languages & International Communication - Convener: Patrick Boylan - Academic year   2007-08

COURSE:        English II for English minors , curriculum OCI
 
TASK N° _1_    Due date: __/__/__    Group Leader: _________________    <Use BLOCK LETTERS

Group:     A     B     C     D     E     F     G     H     I     J     K     L     M     N       <Circle a letter

Evaluation Sheet (Criteri per giudicare la ethnographic report in fondo)
 
GROUP LEADERS: WRITE NAMES USING BLOCK LETTERS.

WRITE STUDENTS' NAMES ON LINE, CIRCLE POINTS FOR EACH CATEGORY, GIVE TOTAL.

1. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

2. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

3. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

4. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________

5. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

6. _________________________ Form = 0 1          Content = 0 1      0 1      0 1      0 1          Total = __
 
Comment: _______________________________________________________________________
 
________________________________________________________________________________
 

Group Leader's signature________________________________

INSTRUCTIONS

NOTE: WHEN YOU RETURN THE EVALUATION SHEET TO THE TEACHER,
DO NOT INCLUDE THIS SHEET: KEEP IT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

The purpose of this experiment is to see if you can translate into English the communicative intent of a text in Italian. I asked you to write a personal Life Story --- this gives you the opportunity to translate a text with a communicative intent that you understand perfectly (you wrote it!). Well, at least you think you understand it perfectly.

Then you were asked to tell your (translated) story to an American student from Trinity College and to question him or her to see if s/he “got your (implicit) message,” explaining what the story communicated to her/him.

FORM: 0 = No indications of student, course, date, assignment etc. on top and/or tiny margins and/or difficult-to-read handwriting and/or lots of spelling and punctuation and grammar mistakes.
1= The opposite of the above. If one element is missing, the student does not get the point.

CONTENT:

When you heard the student's story (at Trinity or the recording or the written version), you found it:
– 0 = poorly composed (hard to follow and/or misleading words and/or no focus and/or no point of arrival);
    1 = well composed (easy to follow, clear and coherent, well focused, makes its point).
 
– 0 = poorly told (hesitation and/or embarrassed laughing and/or mispronunciation and/or flat intonation and/or inaudible);
    1 = well told (loud, confidant, good pronunciation and lively intonation, voice characterization*).
    *In the dialog, different people should have different voices and speak differently.

You found the student's report (on whether s/he achieved her/his communicative intent) to be:
– 0 = poorly grounded (intent not clear and/or intent not profound and/or impressionistic justification for the claim that the Anglo listeners actually grasped or did not grasp the communicative intent);
    1 = well grounded (clear exposition of what that intent was; the intent is what the text most profoundly expresses for an average reader/listener, according to you; the student gives convincing reasons why the Anglo listeners grasped or did not grasp that intent, including citations of what the Anglo listeners said).

– 0 = poorly organized (the conclusion is at the end or missing and/or the premises are not declared and/or there is no systematic reasoning and/or data is missing and/or the student gives no perspective on the experiment itself);
    1 = well organized (report begins with conclusion, then gives premises, then gives data and reasons, and, finally, draws a conclusion about the experiment itself).