Week 8 - Intellectual Property

Group One

Team Name: Parametric Architecture

Team Members: 

Wiki Page:

Clarity of the oral presentation

The presentation was unprepared and wasn't engaging as the group members read straight from their papers/ palm cards and the screen. This showed they did not have a sound understanding of the content as they were unable to explain what they had researched. 

Clarity of the written presentation

The prezi presentation was well put together and the slides had a nice flow to them. Unfortunately the information on the slides had too much text on them or the images were too small to be able to have a clear view of. The content on the slides were not thought through as referencing was there but unclear to what they were referencing. 

Distinctiveness and specificity of the examples:

The group provided a sound understanding of the topic as they gave specific examples of how Intellectual Property is used in the industry. Unfortunately they didn't link Intellectual property to their project and how it affected them. Without doing this, it did not seem they understood how Intellectual Property could have been used in their project.

Referencing

References were given but they were not positioned properly and was not clear to what they were referencing. The references were quite small and was unclear.

The still images:

The group provided quite a few images that were well linked to their topic compared to other presentations. However some of the images were quite small and it was quite hard to view them. Even thought most of the images reinforced their topic, quite a few were not needed as they did not add to their presentation but rather took away from it. 

Group 2

Team Name: Geriambience

Team Members: Steven Best, Dan Zhang, Jing Liu, Matthew Kruik and Siyan Li

Wiki Page: http://geriambience.wikia.com/wiki/Geriambience_wiki

Clarity of the oral presentation

Like all the groups, this group read from their papers or read straight from the screen. This lead to them to not having a consistent pace at which they were talking. It was unsure if they were nervous or were just not prepared enough to speak without any guidance from paper or the screen.

Clarity of the written presentation

The group had quite a sound understanding of their topic as they provided very good examples and I felt I was able to learn quite a lot from their presentation. They provided the right amount of information per slide as I wasn't reading from there and mainly concentrating on what they were talking about. Unfortunately I feel the visual aspect of the prezi presentation could have had a bit more work put in to make it more appealing.

Distinctiveness and specificity of the examples:

The examples that the group provided were more related to their project which was very good. This allowed me to understand the topic better as there were examples to something I can relate. 

Referencing

Referencing was provided.

The conceptual context:

It was interested to see how 2 groups perceived the same information and interpreted it in different ways. The group seem to be on a very good track with their project but I seem that some members may be pulling more of the wait than others.

The still images:

Unfortunately they did not provide the 7 images asked for and I felt their could have been better images used to support their argument. I feel the first group's images enhanced their presentation more than this group.