In order of presentations:
Cassie and Vanessa had a good hypothesis and explanation. They possibly could have marked their map more clearly to indicate where the sea wall ended. Vanessa definitely was very nervous, and used unnecessary diction such as "um, like, uh" which was very distracting. The methods explanation could have gone smoother because of this. Both partners seemed knowledgeable about their project, indicating shared effort. Their outcome was interesting and the discussion was good. The slides flowed logically.
The bird diversity group had an interesting hypothesis. The information was given in a very jumpy manner, not very consistent, flowing, or smooth. The information was very repetitive. Their maps were marked very clearly however. Perhaps not a very good understanding of statistics due to explanation of their outcome. Most of the members seemed excited about their project.
The comparing native plants group was my favorite project and presentation. They had an awesome idea and method, not to mention a very nice power point. Their charts were nicely presented and useful. There was obviously a good distribution of work in the group, and they all knew what was going on. They had a great data and outcome section.
The sea level group's presentation was impressive. They made good use of outside information like the news from Mote. Both seemed interested and knowledgeable about their project. They had an awesome projection map that made me excited about their project. They gave very detailed results and very clear conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment