Blog 10: Essential Question

1. I reviewed the rule of three for writing an EQ.

2. Review the following EQ's, tell if each meet the rule of three, and why they do or don't.

What is the most important factor in healthy weight loss?

I think this EQ meets the rule of three because it is indeed an open-ended question. It is broad enough to allow elaborate answers yet precise enough to be specific. It can be debatable because there are multiple answers meaning that some stance can clearly be taken.

What is most important to securing a conviction in a criminal investigation?

I think this EQ meets the rule of three because when it comes to criminal justice there are so many laws and guidelines that some evidence can be heavier than others etc. I think it would allow for someone to take a stance because cases can be looked upon from multiple points of views i.e. the judge, district attorney, defense attorney, or the criminal himself. I think it's worded well as it allows a breakdown of the question.

What is most important in creating a hairstyle that best satisfies a customer?

I don't think this EQ meets the rule of three because more research should be presented within the question. It should specify a type of customer, occasion, season, etc. It allows argument however I think it leaves room for too many stances to be taken. The wording would be good if that was the true question it was trying to convey.

How can an anesthesiologist best treat chronic pain?

I don't think this EQ meets the rule of three because it's too open-ended. I think it has A LOT of room for more research to be present. What type of chronic pain, I think, would be crucial when answering this question. More specifically, I think what kind of treatment needs to be specified because it could be for healing or pain.

3. My EQ.

What approach is most effective when profiling a criminal?

-or-

What sub-sections are most vital to an accurate criminal profile?

Blog 9: Lesson 1 Reflection

1. Positive Statement

What are you most proud of in your Lesson 1 Presentation and why?

I am most proud of my knowledge on my topic. I knew, of course, that I had been learning a lot but I wouldn't have thought that it was that much. I also am proud of the fact that I didm't speak as fast as I thought I would and I did not feel a barrier between myself and the audience.

2. Questions to Consider

A. What assessment would you give yourself on your Lesson 1 Presentation (self-assessment)?

I would give myself a P.

B.  Explain why you deserve that grade using evidence from the Lesson 1 component contract.

I would give myself a P because I felt that I was making a good amount of eye contact with the audience and was speaking clearly. I also felt that although I was using correct terminology true to my subject, I also lamened some terms so that the audience was understanding the content. I also referenced three sources, two of which I had with me and used them as examples. I also referenced back to them around twice each; I also talked about my internship, mentor, as well as what I do there.

3. What worked for you in your Lesson 1?

I think the technology restriction worked well because it allowed for more thinking and preparing on my behalf. I felt it helped me be more prepared and knowledgeable of my topic.

4. (What didn't work?) If you had a time machine what would you do differently?

If I were able to do my Lesson 1 over again I would definitely slow my talking a bit as well as break down my content more. I must admit that I had a few chunks of information that should've been broken down to several bits of information. I also would be more aware of my time limit.