Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Reflection 7
I was very impressed with the way the simulation went. Everyone had good arguments and critiques relative to their topics, and their videos were equally as good. I personally thought that when we were given eight minutes of time in which to do our presentations, it was going to be easy to keep our presentation under eight minutes and still prove our point. That was until I edited our groups video and it ended up being 7 minutes and 50 seconds long. We had to cut out almost half of our material in that video, which made me a little dissapointed because the video became choppy and we didn't get to express everything we wanted to in it. Then, when we had three minutes for our rebuttal, I was unable to address all the arguments I wanted to because my other group members just had enough time to be able to address all the arguments they needed to. So I believe that it would have been beneficial to have had more time to present this simulation, maybe during a lab period. I also think it would have been beneficial to have had some debate time so that we could address each argument but also develop arguments against the rebuttals. I feel like the whole process was very formal and rigid, and I feel like we would have been able to convince our president to sway to one side or the other if we had been able to debate our issues. Otherwise it turned out much better than expected, and I look forward to doing something like it again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lorna,
ReplyDeleteThe simulation was really exciting, and it was so interesting to hear the different views from the interest groups. I was amazed by how much each team thought "outside the box," and sustained arguments worthy of 8+ minutes. However, I think the limited time period was crucial to the debate. Though I'll admit it was difficult (stumbling over one's words really does eat up time for one's group), I think it adds to the pressure of a real debate/conference. Points have to specifically support the argument (no tangents allowed), and be as incisive as possible. As for the rebuttal period, however, I agree. Maybe if the debate was more direct than indirect, opinions would have been stronger.
~Rachael W.
I think you're point about having more time to form a substantial rebuttal is very valid. I also would have liked time to be able to construct an argument against a rebuttal, or even to have a group argue against my own rebuttal because that would have furthered our understanding of the issue.
ReplyDeletei don't know whether or not we will have an opportunity to do this again but maybe it would be a good idea to suggest using a lab period to PTJ.