Class,
After calculating your votes (3 points for 1st place, 2 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd place) the winners for tops 3 videos are: No. 1 Elyse; No. 2 Michelle and No. 3 Jennifer. They will get 3, 2 and 1 extra point for project.
Feedback
in regards to Tina Li, your script is very well said and is very coherent. She flows naturally and has a comparison of years in smog and relates smog to London.
In regards to Michelle, he explains the burden of having the extinction and declining of the animals. She also brings forth sympathy by emphasizing the amount of animals that go extinct due to humans hurting the Earth.
Finally, as for Amy, she explains the impact and importance of water. In regards to humans, nature, animals, and life in general. The best was when she explained what would happened to the water if it became polluted. A lot of warm to the ecosystem, nature, environment, Earth, animals, human etc. It was very heartbreaking since we all rely on water.
1. I chose Elyse as my top pick because her video was concise with very nice edits. Through her editing like including many visuals it allowed me to understand what she was saying easier. She used a lot of data to support her thoughts, which made this video much more trustworthy. Lastly, she included her own opinion which allows the audience to hear her perspective which can sway the audience in supporting her cause.
2.I chose Michelle second because like Elyse her video was easily understood and have very nice edits such as visuals. She too included data but not as much as Elyse and her bloopers were unnecessary.
3. Lastly, Amy was chosen as number 3 because she too made a easily understood video included some edits and data to support her ideas. Amy's context was very very good, don't get me wrong but she didn't have as much edits as the others which made me decide to make her as my third choice.
Eylse's Video- I think she did a good job of explaining the causes and effects of air pollution. She said a lot of facts and added a lot of pictures and diagrams to give us a image of this problem.
Michelle's video- I like the music playing in the beginning. It gives a emotional flow to her topic about animal extinction. She also added pictures and had good amount of facts.
Jennifer's Video- I think Jennifer explain pretty well. I feel like her video is pretty simple but has a lot of information. Also, she has pictures to match her explanation.
Michelle is first because cooperation of pictures and subtitles are eye appealing. The clear voice shows advanced perpetration and calmness. Finally variation in speech patterns keep the viewers attention for much longer than other videos. Amy is second due to her great statistics and images for reference or facts. The videos volume and her voice isn't low or too high. Clear subtitles but did have at least a mistake. Jennifer is third because of the organization and pics but lacked more info than Amy. The explanation is pretty accurate but voice isn't consistent through video. The pictures and small cartoons on the corners are somewhat funny and goes along with what she has to say.
Michelle would be the first because she had good editing. Also she addresses her argument. Jennifer would be the second because she convinced me with her argument. She speaks in a clear voice. Finally Sunny would be third because of the music of the video. I also agree with his points and solutions.
OK
Elyse做的最好应为她的视频很清溪，而且她都有说污染怎么害人类和环境。
Jennifer 是第二因为她有在她的视频里加subtitle ，然后她说的话我都可以听得通。她也有好好的说污染怎么可以把我们喝的水给毒了
amy 是第三因为她是说的很好，但是他没有比Elyse介绍污染的大破怀好所以amy是第三，而且amy的视频有点黑，我觉得很不清溪。
Michelle's video is 1st because there was background music, many pictures and the subtitles were easy to read. The introduction was also interesting as it showed the effects of the problem. Valerie's video provided statistics/ charts to help explain the problem. While the sound effects and different styles of subtitles made it interesting to watch. Jennifer's video had many pictures and animations. Even though it was simple, it was easy to understand.
-I really like Michelle video because it look like she spend a lot of her time on the video and even added music, picture, and blooper to make it more interesting.
-Elyse's video is also good because she spoke as if she know what to say without having any issue at all.
—Sunny's also seem to spend time on his video and i like how he posted the picture and then explain what it is.
Elyse-she had lots of pictures and graph that explains her topic. Also her explanation was pretty good.
Michelle-she has lots of pictures like Elyse too. I also like how her video is like a slide show and had the important ideas as one slide.
Jennifer-she also had lots of pictures. I liked how she had the pictures in he corner so we can listen to her explanation and see the pictures at the same time.
Michelle: She used a decent amount of visuals and sound effects to help emphasize what her point is. Her speech was very well projected and clear to understand.
Elyse: Very well use of visuals such as graphs. Subtitles made her speech easier to understand and follow.
Cindy: Her images helped illustrate her main points. Made a lot of progress with her Chinese.
Elyse- Her overall video was very professional. She used many pictures to explain her thoughts, explained really well, and even had subtitles. Tina- Her explanation was very clear. Andy- His explanation was good and his voice could be heard.
Elyse is good because she had pictures and captions. Also it's clear. I chose Michelle because she also had pcitures and captions. However the darkening of the video was what I disliked. I chose Jennifer as third because she had pictures and captions but the pictures weren't as impactful as the others.
In Elyse video there was a lot of graphs and pictures representing what she is trying to present. I think the video overall would help other people understand better.
In Jennifer's video although there were also some picture and subtitles add to help what she is trying to convey. I think there was also a nice flow in general of her overall speech.
In Amy's video she was really clear about her topic. And she also added some subtitles which will help other people follow along .
i chose elyse because it had many pictures and the way she presented was very cleared. Second, I choose Michelle because her argument had data to support her claim. Finally, I chose Tina because her argument was very clear but it was hard to hear her
我觉得Michelle的视频很好因为他油价很多照片和音乐。Michelle在说话的时候很慢也特别清楚他在说什么。Michelle也加了一些数据和单位。Amy的视频也很好因为她油价照片和一些音乐。我觉得Amy说的水污染造成什么事很好。Jennifer的视频也很好因为他说话的时候很清楚。Jennifer的视频里也有很多照片。
For Michelle the video is very descriptive and also the editing was really good. She also added a little extra which was the bloopers and I thought that was nice. For Elyse it was a clear and concise explanation of her topic. Also the editing was good with the change of pictures. For Jennifer I like the pictures added on the top corner so you can see the pictures while looking at the speaker speak.
I thought elyse's project was the 1st best because not only she incorporated subtitles, her editing skills were amazing as well. But most importantly, she covered all the aspects on the rubric including the causes, effects and the solutions to solve her environmental issue. She also incorporated graphs and scientific data to support her claim.
I thought amy's project was the 2nd best because she had covered all the aspects as well but she did not include graphs like what elyse did. The subtitles also helped me alot to understand her topic.
Finally, I thought tina's project was the 3rd best because her topic was stated clearly. she also had all the aspects but she did not have any video editing nor subtitles like amy and elyse.
Elyse's video is very good. There was virtually no mistake, and very detailed.
Michelle's video is also very good. There was a lot of visuals, making it more easier to comprehend.
Amy's flow was very good in the video. The pictures that were added emphasizes her argument, making her points clearer.
Michelle: It was very through and unique. There was a lot of information and the video was organized similar to an documentary.
Elyse: It was also very organized. Although not as fluent when it comes to being able to understand it directly, it was still very informative.
Jennifer: The writing was very through and formal. It looks like an actual documentary film and the pictures made it even more unique.
In my opinion i would rate Michelle first among the class because she did a excellent job explaining her topic clearly and her video format with the editing is nice. I would rate Elyse second among the class because her topi about air pollution was introduced and gave many solutions for the issue. Her video also showed pictures to explain her statements. I chose Jennifer's video third because I was impressed with the way she made her claims understandable through the pictures on the side and she was also clear and focused as well.
I chose Elyse as first because she spoke clearly and was easy to understand. She also supported her point well with lots of visuals and made eye contact. Michelle was second because she spoke clearly and supported her point well. She also used pathos which appealed to people's emotions (when speaking about animals) and she had eye contact. Andy was third because he spoke clearly and supported his point well. He was also entertaining and had music in the background.
Elyse Ng: Pretty much for the whole entire video, Elyse was looking at the camera. Additionally, she included pictures.
Annie Huang: She was reading quite fast and very clearly. She clearly had confidence while reading and sometimes made eye contact.
Ryan Fong: He had passion while reading. Additionally, he was making eye contact and used gestures.
