1. TEAM PRESENTATION Mrs. LeVeque

2. 8-10 MINUTE PRESENTATION Develop a presentation that conveys your key findings and deliver it to an audience of your peers. The presentation and the media used to enhance the presentation should consider audience, context, and purpose. The presentation should reflect the major components of the Written Team Report. Engage your audience using appropriate strategies (eye contact, vocal variety, expressive gestures, movement, etc.)

3. H-ROW 1 BUILDING AND COMMUNICATING AN ARGUMENT “…well organized to support the argument and contextualize the topic.” “…presentation connected multiple perspectives…” “Some responses in the OD were more effective than others but overall the responses were consistent with the resolution.” “…from the beginning slide, which states the conclusion, to each of the individual sections, the presentation is interconnected. Additionally within each section, the presentation includes the negative consequences... Even when hypothetical consequences are given, credible sources are offered to support the speculation… The conclusion was supported by each individual component and echoed an earlier section of the presentation…In the OD, students provide possible positive consequences…which suggests that was part of their research but was excluded from the presentation because it didn’t support their conclusion.”

4. H-ROW 2 PRESENTATION- ENGAGING AN AUDIENCE “…content and organization of the slides strongly supported the argument.” “The text was legible and consistent throughout and repeated points of the argument.” “The visuals were relevant to the examples being presented.”

5. H-ROW 3 PRESENTATION-ENGAGING AN AUDIENCE “The response earned 6 points for this row because the presenters used minimal notes, spoke directly to the audience, and seemed genuinely interested in each other’s presentations”

6. H-ROW 4 PRESENTATION- ENGAGING AN AUDIENCE “…presentation addressed the audience. The examples used to support the argument were timely and helped establish context. The purpose was maintained throughout and the individual presentations supported the argument individually and as a unit.”

7. H- ROW 5 COLLABORATION “…complete support and equal participation was evident from all team members. The OD suggested several students were capable of responding and that the students understood the limitations of their solutions.” “…the presentation moved seamlessly (except for some technology issues) between presenters with multiple presenters contributing to the discussion of one slide. Despite some confusion about the questions being asked, the students seemed equally informed about the topic.” “The response earned 3 points for this row because the individual components are connected as suggested by the content of the components and the transitions between them.” “…almost all of the students contributed, and sometimes it seemed more than one was prepared to respond.”

8. ROW 1 BUILDING AND COMMUNICATING AN ARGUMENT M “the presentation summarizes the team members’ perspectives, but ineffectively connects these perspectives to each other and to the eventual solution or recommendation” M “various team members interpreted the stated topic in different ways…This added to the weak connection among the various perspectives and the eventual solution.” L “question is too broad and never actually stated in the presentation. The lack of an introduction and artificial division of the topic using Lenses that were supported by seemingly random examples made the presentation hard to follow. The presentation as a whole and the individual student portions were disjointed. The solutions were simplistic. The OD responses were superficial, suggesting checking statistics and vague, explaining excluding a study that contradicted her findings because it wasn’t as relevant.”

9. ROW 2 PRESENTATION- ENGAGING AN AUDIENCE M “relied heavily on text and only used 3 graphs for visuals; one of which wasn’t well explained” M “presentation appeared to be an exact copy of the information being spoken and were, therefore, too crowded with text.” M “although the images are germane to the presentation, they are often simplistic or only tangentially related. Also the graphs…were hard to read.” M “presentation relied heavily on text and included few visuals; most of which were not explained.” M “text was legible but too small” M “although the images are germane to the presentation, they are often simplistic or only tangentially related. The charts and cartoons presented as evidence were not explained.”

10. ROW 3 PRESENTATION-ENGAGING AN AUDIENCE M “although the report is delivered mostly independent of notes or a script, the presenters do not seem aware of an audience. The delivery is flat.” M “this was inconsistent for the team. Some of the team members were difficult to hear or understand, which made following their points difficult. Others were much stronger speakers and were more effective.” M “the entire presentation is read from notecards or the screen. The reading is awkward and the pronunciation is flawed. The delivery is flat with no eye contact, vocal variety, or movement.” M “significant reading from note cards. The delivery seemed forced and awkward”

11. ROW 4 PRESENTATION- ENGAGING AN AUDIENCE M “the part of the initial question was simplified…The presentation didn’t connect its topic to its audience” M “the team’s media was fitting for their topic but was not very effective. The type was small and difficult to read, and the few visuals did not further explain information or engage the audience. The presentation of each member’s information was offered but was not tied to the prior or subsequent lenses, simply explained on its own. The team clearly kept the context in mind but was inconsistent on the purpose.” L “little consideration of the audience is shown. The scattershot approach to human rights issues meant the audience had to try to make sense of the presentation. Neither the topic nor the examples were contextualized. As mentioned earlier, the question was too general to sustain the presentation.” L “the presentation provides only vague references to the context of the topic. As mentioned earlier, the focus is not established or maintained to achieve a purpose.”

12. ROW 5 COLLABORATION M “each team member participated, but some were more engaged and more knowledgeable than others, indicating an inconsistency or imbalance in participation. The speaker who addressed the political lens was very focused on all the other speakers’ presentations, nodding as they made their points, but others (while attentive) were able to deliver their own content only with no connection to the rest of the presentation or topic.” L “the presentation had minimal connectedness between sections and demonstrated strong disparity in participation and in the OD.” L “the overall presentation is comprised of separate presentations of individual’s work and little evidence of collaboration is evident in the presentation or OD.”