From FMMC0104
Jump to: navigation, search
(Report #1)
(Report #1)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Report #1 ==
 
== Report #1 ==
 
This is a strong report, with good research, clear details and effective writing. You could deepen your analysis a bit more, considering why AP's approach seems to be effective in reaching its target audience and how it distinguishes itself from other nature/educational channels. The wiki editing seemed to be unequally distributed amongst your team - make sure everyone is participating equally. Your presentation was a bit less organized than it should have been - clarify who is supposed to cover what material more in advance, and practice the coordination between speakers. --[[User:Jason Mittell|Jason Mittell]] 21:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 
This is a strong report, with good research, clear details and effective writing. You could deepen your analysis a bit more, considering why AP's approach seems to be effective in reaching its target audience and how it distinguishes itself from other nature/educational channels. The wiki editing seemed to be unequally distributed amongst your team - make sure everyone is participating equally. Your presentation was a bit less organized than it should have been - clarify who is supposed to cover what material more in advance, and practice the coordination between speakers. --[[User:Jason Mittell|Jason Mittell]] 21:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Reports #2 & 3 ==
 +
These reports are fairly erratic, with some good points and analysis interspersed with awkward writing and underdeveloped sections. Work on revising for maximizing clarity and analysis throughout. Your presentations lacked a sense of planning and polish, with vague points and weak structure. The balance between group members is a significant problem, with lack of participation across the entire group based on the editing history on the wiki. --[[User:Jason Mittell|Jason Mittell]] 21:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:54, 22 November 2010

Report #1

This is a strong report, with good research, clear details and effective writing. You could deepen your analysis a bit more, considering why AP's approach seems to be effective in reaching its target audience and how it distinguishes itself from other nature/educational channels. The wiki editing seemed to be unequally distributed amongst your team - make sure everyone is participating equally. Your presentation was a bit less organized than it should have been - clarify who is supposed to cover what material more in advance, and practice the coordination between speakers. --Jason Mittell 21:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reports #2 & 3

These reports are fairly erratic, with some good points and analysis interspersed with awkward writing and underdeveloped sections. Work on revising for maximizing clarity and analysis throughout. Your presentations lacked a sense of planning and polish, with vague points and weak structure. The balance between group members is a significant problem, with lack of participation across the entire group based on the editing history on the wiki. --Jason Mittell 21:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)