Group Presentations - Conflict

DCLD: DCLD were the first out of the two groups to give their conflict presentation. Overall, the presentation was very full of information, but it's main downside was that it had far too much text on the screen. This was a common factor amongst all of the group members sections. The written part of the presentation had lots of details, but in some cases this caused a problem as they were expecting to get too much information across at some points. They also had an issue with using too many lists. On a majority of slides, all the information would be listed, in full detail, and they would simply run through this series of dot points one by one. This gave the presentation a very disjointed feel as they bumped from one topic to the next without any kind of transition. The oral side of the presentation suffered due to the nature of their slides. They had all the information they wanted to communicate to the audience written down on the slides, and then simply read off them. A lot of the time I found myself reading the entire slide quickly then losing attention to what was being spoken about because I had just read it. A more affective way of presenting would have been to have the dot points on screen contain only snippets of the information, or headings, which would then be elaborated on in the spoken component. There was also a sense that the group wasn't particularly organised for their presentation. I got this from the way they changed between the person who was speaking. They would throw the presentation over to someone else who seemed like they didn't know where to pick up. This made each section of the presentation seem like it was disconnected to the rest. The images they used were pretty decent, although a bit small or full of words sometimes. The flowgraphs seemed like they were very relevant, although it was hard to make out the details due to their size. As far as I could tell, all the images were referenced, although again they were too small to read. These problems would be negated if I had a copy of the presenation, but being in the audience as it is delivered, you cannot make out the details. Kinecting the boxes: Kinecting the boxes presented second on the day. The written side of the presentation was well done. Like the last group they used plenty of lists, but not quite to the same extent. There was definitely more of a flow between the topics, so it seems like they did think through the flow of their presentation and how one person would hand onto the next and link their subject matter. They used plenty of examples to demonstrate what they were talking about, although they were somewhat vague and unrelated to their groupwork. While this isn't wrong, it would have been nice to hear about some conflict resolution that had happened within their own group. In terms of their oral presentation, it was significantly better than the DCLD groups. They read off notes rather than the slides, which meant the audience had to listen to the presentation to gain the knowledge. They did somewhat fail to engage the audience though, as they were merely reading and not talking to us. Like the previous group, the images they used contained far too much text, and in some cases, like the flowgraph, were too small to read and took far too long to explain. I found myself losing some interest during these long explanations. They explained their topic well, but it is hard to tell if they understood what they were telling us or simply reading if off the paper infront of them.