Although
I did very well on this test, there were a few aspects of it, and specific
questions on it, that I didn’t fully understand. Many of my correct answers
were educated guesses, some were purely based on gut feeling. A select few of
my answers were wrong entirely.
The
seminar helped me in many ways. Being the discussion leader, I felt motivated
to defend my answer choice on almost every question. Hearing the argument of
others either forced me to back up my answer with evidence (something I wish to
improve on in the midst of taking tests), or swayed me to a different answer
choice. For example, I didn’t know that the word “spectre” literally means
ghost. When discussing a question asking for another word for ghost, I was
informed that the two were synonymous, and therefore changed my answer. Some
people described choosing an answer based on gut feeling, and that is the
strategy I agree with the least. I’d have to really not understand the question
or the passage to base an answer strictly on gut feeling. There wasn’t anything
I felt needed to be said, as I did the majority of the talking.
While
the seminar was mostly beneficiary, there were a few aspects that could be
improved for the next one. On the plus side, many uncertainties were clarified
for everybody, and it was a strong discussion of test taking skills.
However,
there were a few negative qualities. For example, I spoke too much. Although it
was my job to lead the discussion, it was not my job to dictate. While I stated
my opinion on every single answer choice, there were some that hardly ever
spoke. However, the seminar was an overall success.
*I wrote this almost entirely before I found the rubric.
While some of the necessary information is out of order, it is all present.
No comments:
Post a Comment