1450 - 1650 Presentations
France: The list of rulers was very difficult to understand; on the PP it just looked like a massive amount of text. I also did not understand why on the first slide there were citations, but not on the second. Confusing. When presenting, I’d suggest each slide containing a picture and a few brief bulleted points; for example, your slides on ‘Artwork’ was well done -- easy to follow and visually interesting. In your discussion of architecture, it would be nice if you gave elements/pictures explaining the terminology -- for example, I doubt everyone in the room knew what “Gothic” meant. Overall, I think you could do a better job engaging the audience by asking them questions and getting them involved. During some of your presentation, for instance during the ‘French Battles’ slide -- which one would think could have been rather exciting -- was a rather boring list of names and dates with no context nothing to make the audience interested in the subject; you might have chosen one or two battles and given anecdotes, stories, primary sources. Which brings us to the last point: this presentation really didn’t tackle primary sources; no where did I get the feeling that the past was speaking to me. 80%
Spain: Right off the top, great use of maps and primary sources. I would say that you rushed through a bit; I would have like to look more and learn more from the maps. Because you are comparing maps, it would be a good idea to show two maps side by side in one slide so that we could see the difference. I like that you cite Columbus throughout; it would have been nice to see maps of what Columbus found when he reached the Americas. In the section on the Pope, it would have been stronger if you had not just talked ‘about’ what happened, but ‘shown’ it through primary sources and pictures. Prezi is a visual medium -- lack of pictures really makes this section suffer. Again in the section on art: how can you talk about art in a presentation and not give any examples? No images at all? That really hurts the overall presentation. A better strategy would be to show pictures with perhaps a bullet or two and then ‘tell’ us the information. No one wants to get stuck looking at a presentation of all text; especially when the subject is art. Finally in the part of the presentation when you start talking about artists, you show pictures. But, these and more pictures should form the basis of your presentation, not be auxiliary to it. Likewise, there is a lot of meaty material on Spain in the late 15th century, but you gave us no pictures or primary documents; likewise on the ‘Architecture’ section, you give us a lot of info, but you don’t show us anything. So it’s hard for us to ‘see’ and ‘hear’ the past from your presentation. 75%
Holy Roman Empire: Nice layout on your slides: picture, title, bullets. This was very effective. It seemed like you knew your material and I like the fact that you gave personal stories from the lives of the rulers as well as broader historical information. Really great pictures, as well. Also a nice job on the ‘Architecture’ section. You should, however, remember to define architectural terms for us. On Durer, rather than tell us the names of his paintings and etchings, we like to see them. The section on woodcuts was much better. This is a nice presentation; I am wondering, though, how you could ask questions to the audience and involve them more in your presentation. As for the presentation style during the ‘Treaty of Westphalia’ section, here things went sour. It was difficult to hear and there was not even an attempt made to engage the audience. You should have stuck to the format of the first three sections; they were much better. Nice use of maps in the final section; because you are comparing them, you might try putting them next to one another so we can compare between them. Overall, the first half was stronger than the second half. All of that text is fatiguing; it literally makes you tired to try to keep up. The final section on the wars was particularly difficult to follow; breaking up the text with pictures illustrating what was happening would have helped engage your audience. 88%
If you re-edit and turn in a final copy by the end of the day on Monday, I will re-evaluate.
France: The list of rulers was very difficult to understand; on the PP it just looked like a massive amount of text. I also did not understand why on the first slide there were citations, but not on the second. Confusing. When presenting, I’d suggest each slide containing a picture and a few brief bulleted points; for example, your slides on ‘Artwork’ was well done -- easy to follow and visually interesting. In your discussion of architecture, it would be nice if you gave elements/pictures explaining the terminology -- for example, I doubt everyone in the room knew what “Gothic” meant. Overall, I think you could do a better job engaging the audience by asking them questions and getting them involved. During some of your presentation, for instance during the ‘French Battles’ slide -- which one would think could have been rather exciting -- was a rather boring list of names and dates with no context nothing to make the audience interested in the subject; you might have chosen one or two battles and given anecdotes, stories, primary sources. Which brings us to the last point: this presentation really didn’t tackle primary sources; no where did I get the feeling that the past was speaking to me. 80%
Spain: Right off the top, great use of maps and primary sources. I would say that you rushed through a bit; I would have like to look more and learn more from the maps. Because you are comparing maps, it would be a good idea to show two maps side by side in one slide so that we could see the difference. I like that you cite Columbus throughout; it would have been nice to see maps of what Columbus found when he reached the Americas. In the section on the Pope, it would have been stronger if you had not just talked ‘about’ what happened, but ‘shown’ it through primary sources and pictures. Prezi is a visual medium -- lack of pictures really makes this section suffer. Again in the section on art: how can you talk about art in a presentation and not give any examples? No images at all? That really hurts the overall presentation. A better strategy would be to show pictures with perhaps a bullet or two and then ‘tell’ us the information. No one wants to get stuck looking at a presentation of all text; especially when the subject is art. Finally in the part of the presentation when you start talking about artists, you show pictures. But, these and more pictures should form the basis of your presentation, not be auxiliary to it. Likewise, there is a lot of meaty material on Spain in the late 15th century, but you gave us no pictures or primary documents; likewise on the ‘Architecture’ section, you give us a lot of info, but you don’t show us anything. So it’s hard for us to ‘see’ and ‘hear’ the past from your presentation. 75%
Holy Roman Empire: Nice layout on your slides: picture, title, bullets. This was very effective. It seemed like you knew your material and I like the fact that you gave personal stories from the lives of the rulers as well as broader historical information. Really great pictures, as well. Also a nice job on the ‘Architecture’ section. You should, however, remember to define architectural terms for us. On Durer, rather than tell us the names of his paintings and etchings, we like to see them. The section on woodcuts was much better. This is a nice presentation; I am wondering, though, how you could ask questions to the audience and involve them more in your presentation. As for the presentation style during the ‘Treaty of Westphalia’ section, here things went sour. It was difficult to hear and there was not even an attempt made to engage the audience. You should have stuck to the format of the first three sections; they were much better. Nice use of maps in the final section; because you are comparing them, you might try putting them next to one another so we can compare between them. Overall, the first half was stronger than the second half. All of that text is fatiguing; it literally makes you tired to try to keep up. The final section on the wars was particularly difficult to follow; breaking up the text with pictures illustrating what was happening would have helped engage your audience. 88%
If you re-edit and turn in a final copy by the end of the day on Monday, I will re-evaluate.
No comments:
Post a Comment