Week 10 Presentation Reflection 2

Group Presentation 4: Conflict (Group Name: Kinecting the Boxes)

Grade: CR

Assessment Criteria

• CLARITY OF THE ORAL PRESENTATION_ Does the oral presentation communicate a clear, concise and appropriately delivered Group Theoretical Position?

Good oral presentation and theoretical research. Audience can easily understand the concept of conflict and how it works among people. Presentation was clear and precise and also easy to follow.

• CLARITY OF THE WRITTEN PRESENTATION_ Does the Written presentation communicate a clear, concise and appropriately delivered Group Theoretical Position?

Written presentation was clear, but text was too small to read. I can see that they want to make it detail, but for presentation, long sentence was not a good idea ti present what they want. Short phrase was always the best way to communicate with audience.

• DISTINCTIVENESS AND SPECIFICITY OF THE EXAMPLES_ Are the examples used to elaborate the particular theme of collaboration distinctive and specific?

Good circumstances graph in conflict escalate. This flow graph is quite impressive to audience. But this is t=quite conceptual. They didn’t present many examples and this made presentation unattractive. We want to hear more about the conflict issues in their group.

• REFERENCING_ Are all sources of content properly referenced?

Yes, they had references.

• THE CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT_ Is it clear that the students have a strong grasp of the conceptual context of their theme of collaboration?

They had a general concept about what conflict is. Again, I still recommend them a link it with their project. Using what they learned might be more convincing.

• THE STILL IMAGE_ Do the still images support and extend our understanding of the Group Theoretical Position the students are presenting?

There was not much images in this presentation and I understand this was not easy to find an image relate to this topic.