LDS Statistical Report 2/2/17

Initial gut reaction 1-Not at all   10-Yes, definitely

Did I convey presenter’s overall message? 2

Did I deliver the interpretation with confidence? 3

What is the presenter’s purpose?: Educate the audience on the church's report

What is the presenter’s attitude toward the topic?: (emotive, excited, lethargic…) monotone, just listing information

What was the presenter’s language quality? (clear, redundant, evasive, tangents…) Clear, but he spoke very fast and I couldn't/didn't catch all the numbers.

How was the audio/visual quality? good

How did the presenter structure the presentation? He listed the information. He said a group and the numbers associated with it. 

Did the source text use any culturally bound information or topic-specific jargon?  Lots of culturally bound information and topic-specific jargon related to the church such as ward, stake, branches, etc. 

Brief notes: WOW, that was really fast for numbers. I'm not used to the words associated with the LDS church.  I should've practiced the groups more. I also should've practiced signing numbers more. I felt like he went at lightening speed listing off the numbers and I couldn't keep up! I missed a lot of information. I stopped in the middle of some of his titles/numbers and did not include even close to the full amount of information given. 

Conducting Research 1/26/2017

Initial gut reaction 1-Not at all   10-Yes, definitely

Did I convey presenter’s overall message? 6

Did I deliver the interpretation with confidence? 5

What is the presenter’s purpose?: To educate through story

What is the presenter’s attitude toward the topic?: (emotive, excited, lethargic…) She seemed excited to share her experience and information.

What was the presenter’s language quality? (clear, redundant, evasive, tangents…) It was a little confusing to follow all the different times she popped up as a "new presenter".

How was the audio/visual quality? The video quality was good. 

How did the presenter structure the presentation? She used a personal story/experience to inform the audience about research.  

Did the source text use any culturally bound information or topic-specific jargon?  Topic-specific jargon: qualitative, bias, sampling, etc. Culturally bound information: videophone

Brief notes: I struggled to follow the role shifting and her use of technology to put herself in the screen at the same time.  I used the screen to help with some of her fingerspelling, but I think I focused too much on the word on the screen and not enough to what she was signing so I missed some concepts.  I need to learn to balance using the resources with focusing on the signer. I didn't understand the ending so I stopped abruptly. 

Fast Food 1/26/2017

Initial gut reaction 1-Not at all   10-Yes, definitely

Did I convey presenter’s overall message? 7 

Did I deliver the interpretation with confidence? 7

What is the presenter’s purpose?: His purpose it to entertain his audience with his experience.

What is the presenter’s attitude toward the topic?: (emotive, excited, lethargic…) He was emotive. 

What was the presenter’s language quality? (clear, redundant, evasive, tangents…) It was pretty clear, but in some parts he moved around so I missed some concepts.

How was the audio/visual quality? The audio quality was a little tough to follow. The camera would move sometimes so I missed some of the fingerspelling at the beginning such as the names of the restaurants he was speaking about.  

How did the presenter structure the presentation? He told a story.  He led into his story by giving a few options for restaurants and then informed the audience where he chose to go.  Then he told his story about his experience. 

Did the source text use any culturally bound information or topic-specific jargon?  It was helpful to know about deaf people and some background information about their experiences with drive throughs and with people who do not know ASL.  There was topic-specific jargon related to the names of restaurants. 

Brief notes: Camera moved so I missed fingerspelling in the beginning.  Also one point in the story I missed that the next car drove up and the worker still had the speakers turned up.  I think I corrected myself a few times though so that was good to notice my mistakes in the moment. 

Wine Basics 1/19/2017

Initial gut reaction 1-Not at all   10-Yes, definitely

Did I convey presenter’s overall message? 7 I think I got most of the concepts, but missed some.

Did I deliver the interpretation with confidence? 7 There were parts when I thought she was speaking quickly so I missed some and my face probably showed that.  It was also the first time I've interpreted in a few weeks, so I felt a little intimidated at first. 

What is the presenter’s purpose?: She wants to educate the viewer about wine so they can be more confident choosing and drinking wine in the future. 

What is the presenter’s attitude toward the topic?: (emotive, excited, lethargic…) She was informed about the topic, but didn't seem overly excited.  At the beginning and end she showed the most emotion getting excited about her topic. 

What was the presenter’s language quality? (clear, redundant, evasive, tangents…) Her language was clear and sometimes redundant, but since she was trying to teach the audience that is normal. 

How was the audio/visual quality? During my interpretation my headphones stopped working so I had to pause the video and figure that out.  However, the audio and visual quality of the video was fine. 

How did the presenter structure the presentation? She structured it like a lesson.  She went through the topics she would present first.  Then she explained and expanded upon each topic.  Then at the end she reviewed just as a presenter would who was teaching something to their audience. 

Did the source text use any culturally bound information or topic-specific jargon?  It had topic-specific jargon including names of wine and the terms used to describe wine (acidity, tannins, etc)

Brief notes:  Sometimes I felt like I was repeating the same signs over and over.  Before my second take, I am interested to see how an experienced interpreter presented some of the details and facts.  I also feel that I will do better next time after practicing some of the words since this was a fingerspelling section.  

Recovery 1/19/2017

Initial gut reaction 1-Not at all   10-Yes, definitely

Did I convey presenter’s overall message? 6 Sometimes when I missed something, I focused on that and then missed the next idea too.  I needed to practice the Gish model and not focus so much on the details, but try to get the concepts first.  I feel I should've research CBT more and knowing not just philosopher's names, but their ideas would've been helpful. 

Did I deliver the interpretation with confidence? 7 I think it was okay, but I left a lot of details out.  I tried to wait until I understood the concept before giving the details, but then I think I lost some of the information because I got caught up on names.

What is the presenter’s purpose?: He wanted to educate people.

What is the presenter’s attitude toward the topic?: (emotive, excited, lethargic…) He is motivated and believes his topic is of great importance.  He was emotive discussing his experiencing and his reasons why he believes in CBT and studying philosophy.

What was the presenter’s language quality? (clear, redundant, evasive, tangents…) Sometimes he ran through his examples so it was difficult to include all of his knowledge, for example, about philosophers and their ideas.

How was the audio/visual quality? The video and audio quality was good. 

How did the presenter structure the presentation? He introduced himself and his backstory so we would know how he connected to the rest of his presentation.  He discussed his experiences with CBT and then discussed how it can be helpful to others.  He then connected the therapy technique to other philosophical ideas that could help change people's behaviors. 

Did the source text use any culturally bound information or topic-specific jargon? There was some topic-specific jargon such as CBT.  I found the names to be most difficult to keep up with. 

Brief notes:  I think when I lost a name, I often didn't hear their philosophy or the next idea because I became a little flustered.