そろそろ、今度は英語の課題に取り組まねばならない。
実は英語の授業で、とあるニュース番組（もちろん英語）をがんばってしぐさや発音に至るまですべてできるだけ再現する、というものがあって、それを終えた後、各班に対して評価とコメントをつけなければならない。ただしこれ、自分も含めて班は12もあるので、なかなか大変。
そういえば以前の数学の課題は、教授？曰く、「インポートがこちらのPCでできないので再提出をお願いする」、と全員にメールを配布していたらしい。これは最後の課題、気象に関するデータをCSVからインポートして出力し、それに対して考察する、というものというものだったのだが、当然そのCSVは自分のPCの手元にしかないのはわかりきっていることなので、別のPCでインポートしようとするとエラーが発生する。どうやらこれに気づかない学生がほとんどだったらしい。
我は当然このことを見越してわざわざこうなる前から上記のような問題が起こるので出力した画像のみ張り付ける、という注意文まで書いておいた。…ただの自慢だが。
さて、ちょっとここにメモということでその英語のスクリプトを貼る。
12班分。期限は12月10日となっていて、もしかすると9日の23時59分だといけないので、念のためにこの日までには仕上げておきたい。以下は英文。
なお、我が即席で構成していく英文なので、そんなに高度な表現も出ないし、あくまでほかの人にわかりやすい英語で書いている。（というか今はそれくらいしかできない）
以下英文恐怖症注意
1班 Model No.1
In the second part, someone said "Orion is" for two times somehow. I wonder he failed to the following sentence by not memorizing or not reading before pronounciation. I thought that this part should be done again if it has plenty of time. After the part, suddenly the voice tone shrinked. I guess that the rocation of microphones were different in these two parts. After that, there is no such a fatal mistakes. If I add the comments a bit, the PET bottles should be empty. Perhaps my group was doing so.
Model No.3
As a whole, I think that's good in the pronouciation and expression. Especially, I had a little laugh and thought it is great in a scene that someone lies was expressed as the synthesize of lying clothes and only exposing the face. And, as well as in the Model 1, there are some parts whose volume is bit a small, but I am not going to refer it because I have done it in evaluating in Model 1.
2班 Model2
I first thought it is good that there is a subtitles for showing the name of the person interviewed. I can't do the same kind of the ways since I am not accustmed to the use of iPad. To be frankly, I have no smartphone and iPad. And I noticed the difference of proximity of cameras (=iPad) between three people. I think it should be not considered, but I was caught the eyes because they are not using body actions. Therefore, in the terms of acting performance, it is not so good.
Model4
In Model 4, It was similar result. This fact shows there had a margin time of the group work. My team's group work was done normally, but somehow I was pressed by the little time. So the latter Model was not a good result compared to the former Model. If I have another point about this part, there was a noise when they are talking. They can't help doing so because they are doing a group work in the room which has many people to do the same work. I think that if they had been far away from the noise, the voice of clarity would be better, which means I evaluate the audibility as grade 4.
3班 Model 2
For the first listening, there is only one point that they mistook. The part is "~space nearlier…ier…of ISS. As you spend~". And the next part that starts with a sentence "As you spend~", a someone's head (actually, that's hair) is reflected. I couldn't understand why the heads appear in front of the speaker. Perhaps there is similar situation in the true Model 2, but the true model 2 cannot be seen now, so I couldn't check this point, unfortunately.
Model 3
I was clearly remembered by watching the scene of opening papers. Compared to the group of T01, the scene that should express the person who is lying on something is expressed only clothes. In this point, this group is inferior to the group 1. But the paper scene was not considered in group 1, for the evaluation of acting performance, they have a same grade in this term. However, it was a pity that in the last scene, the speaker is swaying right and left. Consequently, my eyes were paid attention to it, so I little hardly listen to the speaker.
4班 Model 5
Compared to the former groups, 1 to 3, in the first, the introduction was inserted. I bother whether this is good for the point of clarity of what they play or bad for the point that this scene is not in the true Model 5.
For the first sentence, I felt the voice's tone was more smaller than that of group 1. And after that, sudden big voice appeared. I was little surprised. About the acting performance, it is great because they are using the expression by acting actually and by drawing a picture that describe the true scene of Model 5.(To be frankly, I don't remember the true Model 5…) In addition to it, the pronounciation was also great.
Therefore I gave a great score in the terms of audibility and English fluency.
Model 8
It was funny and I laughed. It is probably that they express the true Model 8, so I shouldn't have to laugh…. But in other words, they are so enthusiasm to do this group work. Thanks to the prejudice, the lasting part that there are two people that one person is speaking heading to the camera and the other person is swaying same as the group 3 willbe thought as the meaningful even the swaying.
Model 9
Surprisingly, they achieved more than two parts. I think the expressions are quite a exaggeration, but that means they are so eager to do this work. And they provide a laugh and motivation toward to the work, so I evaluate the group 4's acting performance is perfect because of this reason. I can say that it is the best work between group 1 and group 4.
(I am not going to refer to the point that I have to write more amount of comments because they played 3 parts…)
5班 Model 1
First, the angle was toward to the set of chairs, but there is no special meaning about it, I thought. In the next part, someone said the Orion as "oraion", not "orion".(It is written in Roman letters in the "~") In this model, the goodness about the group work is not the extent to the group 4, this work is surpassing the criteria of grade 3. Audibility is good because I can hear almost thoroughly, but English fluency is not bad and not good in repeating some words. As well as the group 1, if they have a time, it should be good to replace the new version that has no mistake about pronounciation.
Model 3
The whole evaluation is almost the same to the Model 1, but there is one point that they have originarity. The scene is that the picture in whiteboards is moving by the person behind it. Another groups are expressed these moving parts about such as rockets, but I think both of them are good for reproduction the true Model.
If I remark the badness about work, in 1:50, there are another people behind the two speaker. If these people who have not relation had been a material such as chairs, boards, windows, walls, this bad point wouldn't be remarked. The existance of extra people is not good because viewers mistake the number of playing the work. In this situation, four speakers are considered.
6班 Model 3 and Model 1
Finally, the time of watching our group's work has coming. I am embarrassed of it, so I deteriorate the sounds. First of all, the fatal mistake was happened. The Model is not written. Perhaps the Model will be 3. In the first scene, my role is only saying "Absolutely.". But only in this part, I can't look at myself for being embarrassed. In the next part, I worn a helmet. It is secret that I have trouble to wear and especially take off the helmet in spite of being the "Gohmert", who is a accustomed astronaut. (That is a joke.) And, I noticed that my voice is much smaller than any other student. But actually my voice was not so smaller. In reality, it needs a retaking about this scene, but we have not so much times because the imaging of this work is not consisted and some reasons that are not so main reason, therefore the goodness about Model 3 has turned to be not so good. And in the lasting scene, we expressed the movement of rocket by using backgrounds and real movement that imitate rockets by using a PET bottle.(In this part, the rest of Cola remains, but in the next part, it was removed. So even in this term, we should have retaken.)
In the next part that is referred about the rocket's separation and landing, I think this part is better than the former parts. However, it was bad that each expression "separation" and "landing" are written in Japanese. We have to study the words of these expression.
Through the most of parts, the voice is smaller than other group. It may be excuse that my voice was more bigger.(But not so bigger than most of another people,I think…)
Furthermore, we have to express the two parts, but in the video, in appearance, there is only one part. But we have played a role each in two parts. That will be proved by watching the true model 1 and 3, perhaps. So I thought that the work needs more bigger voice and the clarity of what Models we are playing. If I evaluate the audibility, English fluency, acting performance, I give the score respectively 2,3, and 4.
7班Model 1
In the first section, someone's pronounciation of astronauts was little strange, I heard it as "astnorauts".And in the same section, they were connecting three tables. I don't know what the purpose, but judging from the movement of the camera, it will be meaningful. And after the section, there is a part that describes about Orions with drawing. In this part, as well as in the some parts of the following groups, the speaker's voice is not so clear and is small. (But even though it is not so clear,that's not always bad, which means she got a grade 3 as a evaluation.) Furthermore, they mistook the prounciation of Orion as the same to group 5's Model 1. And what's more, there is a quite a big noise in the part of two speaker talking with one being lying. Perhaps it is the biggest problem of making videos. In the last part, two speakers talk with each other, but in this part, I was little noticed about the conversation. One person (wearing black clothes) is speaking enthusiastically, but the other person is speaking as if she looked a script. The difference between two people took my attention.
Model 3
I first realized that the speakers are speaking as if they store the next word. So compared to the Model 1, I felt that the pace of the video is slow. But after that this trend has finished. It remain to be mystery why it was. Next, I discovered the mistaking pronounciation. The word Orion seems to tend to be mistaken, but in this part, the word Toxic is mistaken. She said "Toxic" as "Tokic". Finally, the picture of the last scene is good. It involves a shade. This picture will be drawn by Ms.Ishizuka because she was good at drawing picture in the short speech.
8班Model 2 and Model 3
First, as the characteristics of only group 8, they drew a picture that is not shown in the true Model 2. Then, I have some question. If we cannot express the scene in the true Model, should we ignore the part or even if that is lack of reproducibility, express by another method? We group 6 perhaps concluded that we want to express the true Model as possible, but in the impossible part for reproducibility, we have no choice but to ignore the part. Of course, we can't express the part throughly. I thought that the extent of compromising was the key to get a high score. Next, for the pronounciation, a man of the three people pronounces the words not clearly, but another woman who wears gray clothes is done well at prounciation. So I decided to evaluate the pronounciation by taking neutral 3 and 5. It is likely that they express the scenes by drawing pictures, not by body actions. I realized that it is also a effective method to express the true Model. My group used these methods as they did, but somehow the result was not so good.
9班Model 2
I thought that this group absolutely does not the imitate the true Model. If we hear that, the group is not good about a reproducilility. But I noticed that for using another expressions, indirectly they could reproduce the true Model. The previous group 8 expressed the true Model by drawing a picture, and this group did so by body actions indirectly. My group did so by body actions directly. Therefore, in the process of writing and evaluating the group work, there are many methods of reproducing the true Model. If there are similar work in this class, I want to make use of this methods.(Aside from being able to do so)
Model 4
Probably in only in the group 9, there are a lot of nodding in the conversation part. In real, that is very important, but in this work, in the terms of reproducibility, that should not be done, I think. But if the nodding was not good in the work, it is much better than me because I couldn't help laughing when the conversation starts. The reason will be that I am embarrassed if I speak with someone in this kind of works. Of course, in daily life, that is not the case. I am sorry to laugh in the group work for sometimes. By the way, they wanted to express the true Model by body actions indirectly, but this method is involving another problem. If we didn't understand what they did, the method turns to be meaningless. Actually, I couldn't understand what they do. So I noticed that if we use the indirect way for expression, we have to pay attention.
10班
Model 1
First of all, in the duration between 0:10 to 0:14, there is no sounds but only picture. I wonder they failed to use microphone or they want to do so consciously. And the group is looking at the script more explicitly than any other group. We took the method that if we speak, the script is out of the camera's range. To do so, we have troubled where we set the camera not to project the script. I think the reason of only this group having done is not having a plenty of time. The evidence is the ringing of a chime. Also, my group experienced the dangerous situation that we have not so many time, so I can understand why they must have done so. The problem of lacking of time in this group 10 brought another problem. It is English fluency. Since they don't have many times, the time of practicing reading scripts is not remained. So I felt the time designation was also important.
Model 4
In Model 4, unlike Model 1, the work of this group became better. But, because of not having a lot of time, the drawn picture is negligent, I thought. I understand that people's alibity to draw pictures is different each other, but this picture sometimes can't tell me the scene. However, if I evaluate the reproducibility in this term, it will be not fair. So I evaluate this as the grade 4.(being willing to express the true Model) Anyway, I thought that the ability of drawing pictures is important. The reason is not only in this case but also in the case that we have to express something by drawning, such as graphs and figures. (I was good at drawing graphs and figures, but I was not good at drawing human. If I drew it, most of the people can't help laughing.) As a general opinion, the work of group 10 is degradation of that of group 7.(That does not means they are bad, but means the group 7 was quite a great.)
11班 Model 1
This group's expression of the true Model is lack, frankly speaking. Another groups 1 to 10 expressed the true Model, but this group's expression is only speaker's lying. In this point, the reproducibility is not good so I evaluate it as a grade 3.By the way, my evaluating is almost 3, 4, or 5. In the daily short speech's evaluation, the speaker's grade tend to be from 70 points to 90 points. That means if we felt good or great about the speech, 4 or 5 are chosen. If we felt not so good or normal about the speech, 3 is chosen, I think, because perhaps 1 point in our equvalation is equivalent to 20 points. For example, about the originality, if they have no slide for presentation, they have a tendency to get a score about 80 points, and if they have a slide, they tend to get about 90 points. That means there are few people to evaluate about the originality as 1 or 2 even if they are not so good. So being 3 points about my evaluation of reproducibility about group 11 is suitable. As a fact, I never give 1 or 2 point(s) for someone's presentation.
Model 3
The evaluation about Model 3 is almost the same to that of Model 1. But there is only one point for the difference about the reproducibility. That is the scene of opening a paper. But I can't give the score 4 considering only in this scene. If they had had more scene about reproducibility, the score 4 would have given. For the pronounciation, it is not so bad. There was no mistaken words. This seems to be natural, but it may be difficult because some groups miatook the words especially in "Orion". (Maybe they didn't choose Model 1 that doesn't contain the word "Orion" by chance.) In these points, this group's expression is not so good, and the others is not so bad. So I am going to give the score 4,3,3 respectively.
12班Model 1 and Model 4
In the first section, the noise is as big as the speakers' voices. This fact is a big problem about reproducibility and audibility. Considering the circumstances of taking videos, it is impossible not to mix the noise. So for the evaluation of reproducibility, I will ignore this problem. However, the problem of audibility should not be overlooked. The audibility was influenced by the volume of the speaker's voice, but that's not the only cause. I noticed if there are noisy around the speakers, I hardly hear the speaker's voice in some parts. So, the speakers' voices are not bad and work properly, but considering the environment of taking a video, the evaluation about audibility should be 3 points, I thought. That is because it would be possible to retake the video. And they pronounced Orion as "Oraion" in the video. I noticed that this pronounciation is true, finally. So, the evaluation of group 1,5,6 should be retaken but I have already submitted. ("Tokic" is the clear mistaking of pronounciation of Toxic, so it doen't need to revise the evaluation of the group 7.)And, as well as the group 11, the reproducibility is not so good about the expression of Model 1.
The work of the group 12 in Model 4 is almost the same to that of Model 1. So there is no extra saying about Model 4's expression.
はあやっと終わった…。意外にこの作業、疲れる…。
これだけ書いて果たして何点くれるのか…。お願いだから単位くださいといいたい。
この講義だけは…。
