DCLD Group:
The DCLD Group where the first to
present on the subject of conflict. Their presentation was detailed
and complex, but suffered from the common problem of having too much
text on the slides and a lack of engagement with the audience. Their
oral presentation leant heavily on the reading of text from the
slides or at least the screen in front of them. This meant that
instead of feeling like I was being told something, it was more like
I was simply being read something, which I can do on my own. There
seemed to be a lack of organisation with the slides as well, as they
often skipped over some slides or went backwards to previous slides.
The written component of the presentation contained plenty of details, but in my opinion consisted of more lists than was useful. Lists are good for creating a starting point, giving a basic outline of what topics you're covering, but after that it's more engaging, and easier to follow, to talk about things progressively, moving from one idea to the next smoothly without just jumping to the next point on a list. As an extension of the list problem, there was a sense of disconnectedness between each topic, with little explanation of why they where in this particular order or how one topic followed on from the previous one.
Their examples where good, especially the BIM one, but where not explained effectively, so while I got a good idea of what conflicts might arise, I didn't really understand what the potential solutions where.
They referenced most of their images, but the references where often too small to read.
The written component of the presentation contained plenty of details, but in my opinion consisted of more lists than was useful. Lists are good for creating a starting point, giving a basic outline of what topics you're covering, but after that it's more engaging, and easier to follow, to talk about things progressively, moving from one idea to the next smoothly without just jumping to the next point on a list. As an extension of the list problem, there was a sense of disconnectedness between each topic, with little explanation of why they where in this particular order or how one topic followed on from the previous one.
Their examples where good, especially the BIM one, but where not explained effectively, so while I got a good idea of what conflicts might arise, I didn't really understand what the potential solutions where.
They referenced most of their images, but the references where often too small to read.
Their images where decent, but
consisted of a lot more text than was useful. In some cases,
especially the large flowgraph, it was almost impossible to read the
text, meaning the audience had only the vaguest idea how it connected
to the topic.
While there was useful information in the presentation, the way it was presented gave the impression that the team didn't really have a deep understanding of the topic and where just reading what was in front of them for the first time.
While there was useful information in the presentation, the way it was presented gave the impression that the team didn't really have a deep understanding of the topic and where just reading what was in front of them for the first time.
Kinecting the boxes:
The “Kinecting the boxes”
presentation was the second one on the topic of conflict.
Their oral presentation was better than the last groups, as they read mostly from notes rather than off the slides, though there was still a distinct lack of connection with the audience, which could've been achieved by at least looking at them regularly.
Their reading was clear, but not engaging, as if they where simply dictating the text rather than trying to explain something to an audience.
There was also a significant imbalance between the people presenting, as some presented for far longer than others. This may have been due to one person simply being more willing to talk than others, but it did lead to what felt like a less effective group dynamic.
The presentation also went substantially longer than it should've, succinct explanations are far more effective with an audience than lengthy, convoluted details.
Their written presentation was quite clearly written, though it tended on occasion to be oddly melodramatic. They suffered from the same problem as the last group by including far more lists than was useful. They did manage to maintain a reasonable level of flow between the various topics, though having some kind of overall outline would have been useful in identifying this.
Their examples where a bit unrelated, and tended to be very general, rather than project specific. While it's possible they had suffered very little conflict in their group, even theoretical examples are more useful than broad generalisations, since conflict resolution is something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Their presentation was well laid out, but a lot of the images had too much text. The flowgraph was interesting, but took far too long to explain.
It was difficult to tell if they had a good understanding of the topic with so much of the information being read off cards rather than to an audience. While they had a fairly basic view of conflict, they explained it well and gave plenty of detail on the potential resolutions, though there where a few occasions of repeated content.
Their oral presentation was better than the last groups, as they read mostly from notes rather than off the slides, though there was still a distinct lack of connection with the audience, which could've been achieved by at least looking at them regularly.
Their reading was clear, but not engaging, as if they where simply dictating the text rather than trying to explain something to an audience.
There was also a significant imbalance between the people presenting, as some presented for far longer than others. This may have been due to one person simply being more willing to talk than others, but it did lead to what felt like a less effective group dynamic.
The presentation also went substantially longer than it should've, succinct explanations are far more effective with an audience than lengthy, convoluted details.
Their written presentation was quite clearly written, though it tended on occasion to be oddly melodramatic. They suffered from the same problem as the last group by including far more lists than was useful. They did manage to maintain a reasonable level of flow between the various topics, though having some kind of overall outline would have been useful in identifying this.
Their examples where a bit unrelated, and tended to be very general, rather than project specific. While it's possible they had suffered very little conflict in their group, even theoretical examples are more useful than broad generalisations, since conflict resolution is something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Their presentation was well laid out, but a lot of the images had too much text. The flowgraph was interesting, but took far too long to explain.
It was difficult to tell if they had a good understanding of the topic with so much of the information being read off cards rather than to an audience. While they had a fairly basic view of conflict, they explained it well and gave plenty of detail on the potential resolutions, though there where a few occasions of repeated content.
No comments:
Post a Comment