Peer Feedback

Last week before I quickly rushed off to Kent I presented the first draft of my symposium. I wasn’t happy with having to present something to rushed and not ready to actually be read aloud. I also wasn’t prepared visually: with a topic that in its nature isn’t really visual there weren’t any pictures I could point to exactly. I wasn’t there for my feedback, but George emailed me what my peers thought and his own comments as well:

 •    A lot of research/content but a bit overwhelming
   •    too factual and a lot to keep up with – a few more pauses/breaks may help
   •    elaborate on certain points further
   •    a lot of information perhaps make it more digestible – cut down on a few points.

I can see where they are coming from, but personally I would say that ‘signposting’ things during the presentation would help more than cutting things out. In other words help the audience to find their way through it – “so i’ve talked about this .. and now I’m going to explain this … , and you can see how they connect.” or something to that effect.

 

I knew that this was going to be the case: for my first draft I pretty much spilled a lot information into headed paragraphs. I wanted to make a point, use evidence and analyse to link to my question in hand. With their comments in mind, I am now in the process of making the presentation better to digest and trying not to remove too many points, but condensing my facts down. However, I am finding this hard because I know my topic so well, it is hard to imagine what the viewer is going to be listening to and how much knowledge they bring to the symposium. 

 

George emailed me again to signpost more clearly what my question will be at the start; he said that it is clear through my discussion but it does need to be clarified to begin with. But, on a positive he was pleased with how I am questioning my sources and not just taking what is said as truth, so that I can tailor my own answer to the question.