Friday 22nd May:
- Group 27:
Regarding the content, this group has used too much theory which could be applied more to the book in general than to their fragment itself. The amount of information and the time devoted to metrics was too much if we take into account the other grammatical points. In what the delivery and performance is concerned, the first integrant of the group had a wonderful English but he should have pronounced better as he was not clearly understood most of the time. The second component was more monotonous in his talking and he reduced the previous rhythm. The last man talking showed a wonderful facility to face the audience and he made his intervention entertaining and funny. With these characteristics, he attracted the attention of the public.
- Group 25:
This group made a documented and complete power point presentation focusing their attention in different grammatical aspects together with a conclusion they had extracted from the work they had done. Although they had some problems with the vision of the phonological symbols, this didn’t affect the whole result of their performance. We have to say that the two older women in this group showed more capacity and calmness while performing in front of the class. In general, this group had a good delivery and a well-structured work.
- Group 24:
In our opinion, this group has been one of the best taking into account content and also delivery. Their division into phonology, semantics and syntax was well explained and they provided the presentation with enough examples to make it clear and understandable for everybody. They also added a bibliography which was lacked in previous presentations. The parts were compensated in the time they took and, consequently, they didn’t bore the audience. The three components had very good English and were very articulate. We think this has been a model for later presentations.
- Group 22:
This group surprised us with an active development of the presentation taking continuous turns to speak and creating, as a result, an enjoyable performance. They started their PowerPoint with a thorough introduction of the characters who appeared in their fragment which helped the hearers locate themselves in the action. Maybe the content was not as complete and detailed as the two previous ones but the delivery was pleasant and nice in general. They were also the first ones reading a piece of their fragment in Middle English which was the main aim of the presentation according to the instructions the teacher gave the first time he mentioned this work.
Wednesday 27th May:
- Group 21.
This group included a very good introduction and conclusion about the contents exposed in class and we can highlight as a whole that they represented a relevant difference in the way of talking about their work. One of them seemed to be quite nervous and consequently, the way of speaking was not suitable at all, with a notable lack of fluency when introducing the slides in the PowerPoint. The rest of them were characterized with a good language usage in speaking.
- Group 18.
Talking about directness towards the audience, this is perhaps the most participative presentation regarding the total we have seen in class, since they made people keep attentive while asking some questions to the public, one of them answered in an audio. Besides, they seemed more confident with this interaction between speaker and hearer.
- Group 17.
Both people demonstrated that the fact of being only two people has nothing to do when making a good presentation. The girl was able to defend in an eloquent way her part of the text, being direct to people with a positive and fresh attitude towards them. The boy did not show such an active performance, but he did all his best to explain the part belonging to him.
Friday 29th May:
- Group 27:
Regarding the content, this group has used too much theory which could be applied more to the book in general than to their fragment itself. The amount of information and the time devoted to metrics was too much if we take into account the other grammatical points. In what the delivery and performance is concerned, the first integrant of the group had a wonderful English but he should have pronounced better as he was not clearly understood most of the time. The second component was more monotonous in his talking and he reduced the previous rhythm. The last man talking showed a wonderful facility to face the audience and he made his intervention entertaining and funny. With these characteristics, he attracted the attention of the public.
- Group 25:
This group made a documented and complete power point presentation focusing their attention in different grammatical aspects together with a conclusion they had extracted from the work they had done. Although they had some problems with the vision of the phonological symbols, this didn’t affect the whole result of their performance. We have to say that the two older women in this group showed more capacity and calmness while performing in front of the class. In general, this group had a good delivery and a well-structured work.
- Group 24:
In our opinion, this group has been one of the best taking into account content and also delivery. Their division into phonology, semantics and syntax was well explained and they provided the presentation with enough examples to make it clear and understandable for everybody. They also added a bibliography which was lacked in previous presentations. The parts were compensated in the time they took and, consequently, they didn’t bore the audience. The three components had very good English and were very articulate. We think this has been a model for later presentations.
- Group 22:
This group surprised us with an active development of the presentation taking continuous turns to speak and creating, as a result, an enjoyable performance. They started their PowerPoint with a thorough introduction of the characters who appeared in their fragment which helped the hearers locate themselves in the action. Maybe the content was not as complete and detailed as the two previous ones but the delivery was pleasant and nice in general. They were also the first ones reading a piece of their fragment in Middle English which was the main aim of the presentation according to the instructions the teacher gave the first time he mentioned this work.
Wednesday 27th May:
- Group 21.
This group included a very good introduction and conclusion about the contents exposed in class and we can highlight as a whole that they represented a relevant difference in the way of talking about their work. One of them seemed to be quite nervous and consequently, the way of speaking was not suitable at all, with a notable lack of fluency when introducing the slides in the PowerPoint. The rest of them were characterized with a good language usage in speaking.
- Group 18.
Talking about directness towards the audience, this is perhaps the most participative presentation regarding the total we have seen in class, since they made people keep attentive while asking some questions to the public, one of them answered in an audio. Besides, they seemed more confident with this interaction between speaker and hearer.
- Group 17.
Both people demonstrated that the fact of being only two people has nothing to do when making a good presentation. The girl was able to defend in an eloquent way her part of the text, being direct to people with a positive and fresh attitude towards them. The boy did not show such an active performance, but he did all his best to explain the part belonging to him.
Friday 29th May:
- Group 16
The three members of the group perform a quite clear presentation. In spite of a significant lack of security on stage, the contents were explained in a suitable way. They did not include graphics during their exposition, but in general it was quite complete.
- Group 14.
The first component did not make an adequate intervention by crossing his arms, which made audience be concentrated on this position for a long time. Something to be pointed out was the inclusion of audio resources to play some fragments in Middle English, although they finally could not be listened to.
- Group 12.
The participation of this group was a little briefer than the rest of the teams, but it did not affect to the quality of the general contents, which they were able to develop with any problem. The pronunciation was quite accurate.
- Group 11.
Each member of this group made a well-structured presentation, demonstrating clarity and order regarding all the information presented in their PowerPoint. Despite being a bit nervous at the beginning of the presentation, they made audience pay attention and finally, they gave their most sincere acknowledge for the interest showed by the audience.
- Group 10.
They were the only group who used the blackboard to explain the famous Great Vowel Shift, something not used until then. It is also necessary to point out a great pronunciation and a suitable way of talking to the audience expressing security and confidence. To finish, they gave thanks sincerely to everybody for our attention.
They were the only group who used the blackboard to explain the famous Great Vowel Shift, something not used until then. It is also necessary to point out a great pronunciation and a suitable way of talking to the audience expressing security and confidence. To finish, they gave thanks sincerely to everybody for our attention.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario