Feeling tired of wearing a mask and not seeing your classmates' faces? Online presentations are an excellent opportunity to get to know your new classmates better... and to improve your English, of course!
Listen to everybody's presentation and at the end of each one of them post your feedback. Write one strength and one weakness for each presentation so that next time they're even better.
Focus on the following aspects:
-Were the grammar and/or the vocabulary accurate enough? Did you spot any inaccuracies?
-Did the presenter use a wide range of vocabulary and/or structures?
-Were the grammar and/or the vocabulary adequate? Did the presenter use a formal register?
-Were the task and the communicative purpose fully achieved? Why/why not?
-Was the content relevant? Was the topic interesting? Why did/didn't you like it?
-Was the presentation long enough? Was it too short?
-Was the presenter's speech fluent? Were there too many pauses or was the flow ok? Did the presenter speak too fast?
-Was the presenter intelligible? Did the presenter's pronunciation cause any interference? Were the intonation, stress and/or rhythm ok?
-Did the presenter employ adequate communicative resources? How were the presenter's body language and attitude?
-Did the presenter use suitable materials to support the presentation?
Help your classmates with your comments!
Candidate 1:
ResponderEliminar+: good vocabulary
-: try to control your nerves
Candidate 2:
+: good pitch structure
-: improve a little bit fluency
Candidate 3:
+: good fluency
-: try to speak a little bit slower becouse at some point at the presentaiton you speack quickly
CANDIDATE 1:
ResponderEliminar+Strength: The vocabulary used was adequate.
-Things to improve: The presenter's speech should have been more fluent.
CANDIDATE 2:
+Strength: The topic was very interesting and communicative resources have been used properly.
-Things to improve: Grammar could have been used better.
CANDIDATE 3:
+Strength: The presentation was well structured.
-Things to improve: The presentation was a little short.
Presenter 1
ResponderEliminar+: good vocabulary
-: maybe too nervous but with practice it will get better
Presenter 2
+: good presentation very focused on education
-: maybe the fluency
Presenter 3:
+: very good fluency
-: she talked a little too fast
CANDIDATE 1:
ResponderEliminarStrenght (+): He used good and adequete vocabulary.
Improve (-): He was too nervous doing the presentation.
CANDIDATE 2:
Strenght (+): The presentation's structure was very good and the topic was very interesting.
Improve (-): She could be more fluent.
CANDIDATE 3:
Strenght (+): She had good fluency and vocabulary.
Improve (-): She could slow the speaking because sometimes was harder to undersand and she was speaking too quikly.
Presenter 1:
ResponderEliminar+: Good vocabulary and structure
-: Maybe he read a little to much
Presenter 3:
+: Good linking words and interesting topic
-: The voice tone was a little monotonous
CANDIDATE 1:
ResponderEliminar+: He have a good voabulary.
-: He was quite nervous.
CANDIDATE 2:
+: She used good structures and adequate voacbulary.
-: She could read a little bit less her notes.
CANDIDATE3:
+: She had good pronunciation and she had good fluency.
-: She spoke quite fast.
Candidate 1:
ResponderEliminar+: Accurate vocabulary
-: Too nervous
Candidate 2:
+: Formal register and adequate vocabulary
-: More fluency
Candidate 3:
+: Fluent speech
-: Speak more slow
-Presenter 1:
ResponderEliminarStrengths: Very fluent and well structured.
Weaknesses: Poor introduction. Inaccuracies: "an example of each one IT WILL BE".
-Presenter 2:
Strengths: A wide range of signposting expressions and linkers. Well structured speech.
Weaknesses: Word linking and fluency. Inaccuracies: "they are not TEACHED in our education", "some skills that THEY are not included in our daily routine", "FAMILIAR economy".
-Presenter 3:
Strengths: Fluency and signposting expressions.
Weaknesses: Inaccuracies: "I will talk YOU about", "the MORE closer you are, the more confident", "FAMILIAR things".
- Presenter 1:
ResponderEliminarpositive: interesting topic and good vocabulary
negative: too nervous, body language (reading)
- Presenter 2:
positive: well structured, good expressions and pronunciation
negative: fluency
- Presenter 3:
positive: fluent, good grammar and vocabulary
negative: spoke too quickly
Presenter 4:
ResponderEliminar- Very well done and sure
- A little bit slow talking
Presenter 5:
- Well structured
- A little bit inseccure
Presenter 1 (repetition):
- Well structured and pronunciation, cool expressions
- Some vocabulary errors
Presenter 6:
- Very good pronunciation and structure
- She said many times "eh"
Presenter 7:
- Very flowing with examples
- Read a little but good
Presenter 8:
- Well structured
- Too slow talking
CANDIDATE 4:
ResponderEliminarStrength: It is a very interesting topic. It was well structured.
Things to improve: The presenter could have talked more fluently.
CANDIDATE 5:
Strength: The communication resources were used in an adequate way .
Things to improve: The presenter could have talked more fluently.
CANDIDATE 6:
Strength: The grammar used was fine and the communication resources were really well used.
Things to improve: The presentation was a little bit short.
CANDIDATE 7:
Strength: The topic was pretty interesting and the presentation was well structured.
Things to improve: The presenter could have talked more fluently.
CANDIDATE 8:
Strength: The grammar was fine and the topic was really interesting.
Things to improve: The vocabulary used could have been more accurate.
CANDIDATE 9:
Strength: The topic was interesting and the presentation was well structured.
Things to improve: The presenter could have talked more fluently grammar could have been used better.
Presenter 4:
ResponderEliminar+: very good explanation
-: fluency
Presenter 5:
+: fluency and vocabulary
-: grammar
Presenter 6:
+: good fluency
-:
Presenter 7:
+: good fluency and vocabulary
-:
Presenter 8:
+: good fluency and vocabulary
-: bad audio
Presenter 9:
+: good vocabulary
-: fluency
21 October
ResponderEliminarCandidate 1
+: very well structured presentation
-: you could use more sentences that the teacher bring to us
Candidate 2
+: good vocabulary
-: some grammar mistakes
Candidate 3
+: good fluency
-: try to improvise a little bit more
Candidate 4
+: good fluency
-: very short
Candidate 5
+: good fluency and grammar
-: i had some difficulties to listen you well because your micro didn't work properly
Candidate 6
+: good duration
-: grammar mistakes & bad fluency
-Presenter 4:
ResponderEliminarStrengths: Well structured speech and good signposting expressions.
Weaknesses: Inaccuracies: "I'm a first-year STUDENT here at CETT". The pronunciation of "TALK" and plurals (like "MONOTHEISTS").
-Presenter 5:
Strengths: Spontaneous, well-structured presentation. Self-correction in "the THREE part", which she reformulated into "the THIRD part".
Weaknesses: Inaccuracies: "I'm a little bit IN practice" (OUT OF), "to meet them more deeply to know who ARE THEY" (THEY ARE), "all THAT things" (THOSE).
-Presenter 6:
Strengths: Good structure and conclusion. Fluent.
Weaknesses: A little bit short. Inaccuracies: "CETT university".
-Presenter 7:
Strengths: Good concluding expressions.
Weaknesses: A little bit short, poor introduction and it required more preparation. Inaccuracies: "this has MADE a lot of disagreements" (CAUSED)
-Presenter 8:
Strengths: Very well structured and complete, full of examples, personal anecdotes, and questions for the audience. Very expressive use of her hands.
Weaknesses: Inaccuracies: "music remindS us...", "it inspires me DON'T give up and continue" (NOT TO). The pronunciation of "TALK".
-Presenter 9:
Strengths: Good structure and example provision.
Weaknesses: Poor introduction. Inaccuracies: " food APORTS nutrients" (PROVIDES), "at HOUSE" (HOME), "I WILL FREE to ask" (FEEL FREE), "we love TO EAT CANDY" (EATING CANDIES). The pronunciation of "SOUR".
CANDIDATE 4:
ResponderEliminar+: She did a well used of the links and was a very interesting topic
-: Read a little but good
CANDIDATE 5:
+:Good Structure
-: Could talked more fluency
CANDIDATE 6:
+:He seem with more confidence than the last time
-:Short presentation
CANDIDATE 7:
+:Good used of the links and connectors
-:Super short presentation
CANDIDATE 8:
+:Full of examples and good structure
-:She had bad audio
CANDIDATE 9:
+:Good vocabulary and good used of the links
-:Too slow talking and he could taked with more fluency
Candidate 5:
ResponderEliminar+ Accurate vocabulary
- More fluency
Candidate 6:
+ Fluent speech
- A little bit short
Candidate 7:
+ Good structure
- Too many pauses
Candidate 8:
+ Explanation with good examples
- Bad audio
Candidate 9:
+ Accurate vocabulary with a good variety of examples.
-
CANDIDATE 4:
ResponderEliminar+ Good introduction
- She read a little
CANDIDATE 5:
+ Good vocabulary
- She didn't introduced herself
CANDIDATE 6:
+ Fluent and less nervous
- Pronunciation of some words
CANDIDATE 8:
+ Fluent and good information
- Quite nervous and maybe too long
CANDIDATE 9:
+ Good vocabulary
- It was quite slow and not much fluent
-candidate 4:
ResponderEliminar+ good structure and vocab
- monotonous voice (slow speaking)
- candidate 6:
+ good content and structure
- too short
- candidate 7:
+ fluent and good grammar
- too short, disorganized structure
- candidate 8:
+ fluent, interesting
- stopping, bad body language
- candidate 9:
+ linking words, good grammar
- inaccuracies, bad body language, slow speaking