Initial gut reaction 1-Not at all 10-Yes, definitely
Did I convey presenter’s overall message? 6 Sometimes when I missed something, I focused on that and then missed the next idea too. I needed to practice the Gish model and not focus so much on the details, but try to get the concepts first. I feel I should've research CBT more and knowing not just philosopher's names, but their ideas would've been helpful.
Did I deliver the interpretation with confidence? 7 I think it was okay, but I left a lot of details out. I tried to wait until I understood the concept before giving the details, but then I think I lost some of the information because I got caught up on names.
What is the presenter’s purpose?: He wanted to educate people.
What is the presenter’s attitude toward the topic?: (emotive, excited, lethargic…) He is motivated and believes his topic is of great importance. He was emotive discussing his experiencing and his reasons why he believes in CBT and studying philosophy.
What was the presenter’s language quality? (clear, redundant, evasive, tangents…) Sometimes he ran through his examples so it was difficult to include all of his knowledge, for example, about philosophers and their ideas.
How was the audio/visual quality? The video and audio quality was good.
How did the presenter structure the presentation? He introduced himself and his backstory so we would know how he connected to the rest of his presentation. He discussed his experiences with CBT and then discussed how it can be helpful to others. He then connected the therapy technique to other philosophical ideas that could help change people's behaviors.
Did the source text use any culturally bound information or topic-specific jargon? There was some topic-specific jargon such as CBT. I found the names to be most difficult to keep up with.
Brief notes: I think when I lost a name, I often didn't hear their philosophy or the next idea because I became a little flustered.
No comments:
Post a Comment