“Today we are better than we were yesterday and tomorrow even better”

PROGRAMA DEL DIPLOMA

WORKSHEET N° 11
Student Grade 5th Term IV

Teachers Gkori Chuquispuma

Cueva/Karina Rivera Unit IV Date
Content Skill Concept
Human Ingenuity: Debate on technological speaking meaning
and science development
Capacity Performance Links to TOK/CAS
Interact orally taking into account What does “meaning” mean?
Adjust, organize and develop ideas in a coherent and accurate register, manners and
cohesive manner cultural resources. Also, consider
the text type, context and the aim.

Checklist for Peer Assessment

Motion: Motion 2

Team members: Arian Tapia, Antonio Sanchez, Valentina Aquino, Sandra

Marquez, Daniela Ludeña, Carlos Ucañan, Melvin Rojas, Renato Paiva

Points Yes No Comment

1. Is the information communicated clearly? The communication is clear although

2. Does the team demonstrate understanding of the topic
in depth?
3. Are the arguments supported by relevant facts?
4. Are the arguments convincing?
X some mics buffer enough to interrupt
a little bit the audio. Nevertheless, this
wasn’t a drawback in order for the
speaker to understand the information
There was a deep analysis can be said,
X although the analysis could go deeper
with, he information they have, being
superficial in some parts
Although the arguments “are
X supported” by relevant facts, this
support is just mentioning that there
are studies and statistics of this.
Nevertheless, they didn’t go deeper to
analyze them, and if so they don’t
give the statistics as much as emphasis
as should be
The arguments are convincing as
X some of them are said with emotional
purposes this can convince the
audience, nevertheless taking into
account facts and relevant
information, the arguments aren’t
fully convincing
5. Are all the opponent arguments addressed?
6. Are the counter-arguments relevant?
7. Does the team use gestures, tone of voice and a level
of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the
audience?
8. Does the team demonstrate respect for the
opponent team?
Regarding counter arguments, the
X teams jumped directly to the
arguments itself, leaving aside the
opposing arguments
They aren’t relevant because they
X didn’t even say them
The camaras were off so there’s no
X way to determine the gestures, and
regarding voice level and enthusiasm,
most of the debate was in a plain tone
voice although the tone was good but
lack of change. Nevertheless the last
speaker did a notorious change
There is a clear respect to the other
X team in terms of language