Critiques of Group Presentations

	Group 1: Erica Herzig and Ariel Hart Topic: Epigenetics of Aging	Group 2: Andrew Smith, John Whittingham, and Chelsea Hewitt Topic: Anti-Aging	Group 3: Laura Libby, Chelsea Corarito, Miranda Black, and Julianna Dearr Topic: Eugenics	Group 4: Johnathan Niles, Stephanie Bamberger, and Jessica Brosch Topic: SCIDS
Organization	Organized clearly	Organized well	Organized very well	A little confusing
Topic relevancy	Very relevant and specific to course	Very relevant and discussed in class in-depth.	Very relevant and also discussed in class.	Topic very relevant to the class and even discussed in our textbook.
Background research	Did a lot of background research since this wasn't a topic really covered in class	Incorporated material from class nicely with more research.	A lot of background research done and incorporated class material	Could have referenced more than one case study
Presentation organization	Very clear and structured	Very clear	Organized very well, all members had an opportunity to speak.	I was confused by who was supposed to be presenting
Language use	Language a little confusing, but that was mainly due to a lack of knowledge on the topic	Everything was explained in a clear manner.	Very clear and explained concepts from class well.	Very clear, but I was confused when they were discussing the genetics aspect
Eye contact/voice variability	Lack of eye contact, but I could understand them.	Some eye contact made, could have been more. Could have also talked louder.	Eye contact was great. Could hear them well.	Some members of the group made adequate eye contact, but not all. Some could have talked louder as well.
Distracting mannerisms	None.	None	None	Jumped around a lot. Kind of distracting.
Time management	Presentation was pretty long.	Good.	Time management was good.	Tried to fit to much information into a short amount of time.
Collaborative effort	Good, but could have used more people in the group.	Seemed to have collaborated.	Worked well together.	Seemed to have known an equal amount of the material.
Responses to questions	Answered questions accurately	Answered questions to the best of ability	Answered questions thoroughly	No questions asked
Well documented	No, explained nicely	Yes	Yes	No, very insightful
Creativity	Topic was very creative	Topic not as creative since discussed a lot in class	Topic somewhat discussed in class, but creative in their expansion	Presentation was creative, lots of nice pictures
Interest/enthusiasm	Showed interest in topic	Somewhat interested	Pretty interested	Very enthusiastic
Peer evaluation	Sat	Sat	Sat	Sat
Bibliography	In-depth	All sources displayed	Abundance of sources	Sources all pertinent to topic

	Group 5: Zoe Kenney, Flavia Grattery-Musinsky, Andrea Ortiz, and Michael Salgado Topic: Hermaphrodites	Group 6: Molly Swift, Kate Evarts, and Brie McLemore Topic: Sex testing in Sports	Group 7: Anna Gioseffi, Allison Whitcomb, Daphne Hudson, Kyra Berman-Gestring Topic: Klinefelter Syndrome	Group 8: Hannah Brown, Varvara Suarez, Brandon Berry, and Mar Echevarria Topic: Thalidomide
Organization	Not all members appeared organized, but overall, the group seemed organized	We were very well organized	Group was very organized, which was evident through their well-timed, fluid, and relevant presentation.	Group appeared to be well-organized and very prepared.
Topic relevancy	Topic very relevant, and only discussed briefly in class. They did a good job expanding.	Very relevant to the course, especially through our correlation of gender and genetics testing, especially when utilized in unethical ways to instill sexism and perpetuate a sex binary.	Very relevant to the discussions we've had about the many factors that determine sex and the the rejection of the binary.	Definitely relevant because it was something that was mentioned in both class and our textbook.
Background research	Did a lot of background research, and even referenced sources I've discussed in other classes	We did a lot of background research, which was evident because our topic was not covered in class.	Appeared to have done a lot of background research, especially since they were covering a topic that wasn't talked about in class in-depth.	Picked a topic that was already discussed in class, but expanded on it greatly through the use of much research.
Presentation organization	Organized and structured well, flowed nicely.	Our presentation was organized well, with all information fluid and relevant.	Organized in a very fluid way. All the information provided was of importance and it was structured in an easily understandable way.	Organized well, but probably should have started with with more in-depth background of thalidomide and its effects.
Language use	Explained concepts well and were very aware of correct terminology	Had difficulties with the use of “sex testing” or “gender verification,” which could have lead to confusion for others.	Everything was explained in a clear manner and the presenters made sure to use correct terminology, especially for such a sensitive topic.	Accurate language utilized, all terminology easily understood.
Eye contact/voice variability	Lack of eye contact for some, but overall, they spoke loudly enough so everyone could hear	We believe we made eye contact and spoke clearly/loudly. We might have spoken a little quickly though.	All presenters spoke in a very clear and steady tone. Most presenters made eye contact with the audience.	Not much eye contact, but spoke clearly. Some members could have spoken a louder.
Distracting mannerisms	None	No distracting mannerisms, we all attempted to be respectful to our fellow presenters and audience members.	No distracting mannerisms. The presenters stood off to the side quietly when not presenting, making it easier for the audience to pay attention to the presenter.	No distracting mannerisms during any of the presentations. All presenters were respectful to one another.
Time management	Long presentation	We probably cold have managed time better; attempted to fit a lot of information into a small amount of time.	Managed time very well because they fit a lot of information in a small amount of time	Presentation was pretty long and probably could have been much shorter.
Collaborative effort	Yes, except for one member of the group who didn't say anything.	All team members worked together in finding sources, structuring the powerpoint, and ensuring our presentation was fluid, relevant, and sensible.	All team members seemed to work together, evident by the fluidity of their presentation and how all of their research pertained to one another.	Collaboration was evident by the fluidity of presentation and how presenters related their information to one another.
Responses to questions	Gave in-depth and accurate responses to questions	No questions asked.	Answered questions to the best of their knowledge. Some questions posited were not exactly answerable, but they commented to the best of their ability.	Answered questions accurately and clearly.
Well documented	Topic well-documented, but definitely misunderstood. They did a good job explaing it accurately	Topic was very well-documented in the media and very pertinent to recent events.	All information was well-documented on their powerpoint and all information they stated supported this information.	Topic was an already well-documented one, but they provided more information that we hadn't covered in class.
Creativity	Topic was approached in a creative manner that made it interesting	Topic was creative, especially through our use of documenting how genetics has become a major issue of gender and sex in the mainstream.	Very important topic and they creatively applied it to this course, especially through the media representations	Creative issues, especially how topic pertained to genetic ethics.
Interest/enthusiasm	For the most part seemed interested.	We were all very interested in our topic and we feel that it showed in our presentation.	All presenters seemed to be interested in their topic.	Very interesting topic chosen.
Peer evaluation	Sat overall	Sat	Sat	Sat
Bibliography	All sources listed and there were a lot used.	We accurately and clearly listed all of our resources	Very in-depth listing of resources and they seemed to have utilized a lot of sources	Resources listed clearly and even separated by topic (ex.biological/legal), which was very helpful