Panel Discussion
Eulene Albert F. Geronimo
SPEECOM EG
Reflection Paper for Panel Discussion
To be honest, we felt a little disappointed when Ms. Jeanne Purpura told us minutes before our panel discussion that the projector was not available for use. In addition, we also sort of panicked because almost half of what we would deliver that day was only based and could only be delivered effectively by our powerpoint presentation.
The graphs and statistics we have researched about were included in that visual aid; the audience might have enjoyed and understood the discussion more if the projector was functioning well. All the same, we still managed to get through. In fact, in my opinion, we have achieved our objective of informing the audience about mobile nuclear drive, its advantages, disadvantages and consequences to the health and welfare of the society. However, no panel discussion is perfect. In fact, no speech is flawless; everyone has his/her own strengths and weaknesses. And in this paper, I am going to discuss the strong and weak points of our panel discussion. Let me begin with the “Speaker” aspects in the rubric for panel discussion. I admit that one of the weak spots of our group was the lack of enthusiasm in our facial expressions and voice projection. We, the panel members, also failed to establish rapport with one another. However, in my opinion, my groupmates and I tried our best to be as knowledgeable as possible with regards to our assigned topic. Without a doubt, I can tell that we looked prepared and credible, not just because we are engineering students and are expected to really have some grasp of these kind of topics but because we have really researched and internalized the issue in depth. We also wore appropriate formal attire and took our respective roles as different kinds of engineers seriously. As a result of these, we had some convincing power towards the audience that I felt their eagerness to listen and learn more about our subject matter. They
SPEECOM EG
Reflection Paper for Panel Discussion
To be honest, we felt a little disappointed when Ms. Jeanne Purpura told us minutes before our panel discussion that the projector was not available for use. In addition, we also sort of panicked because almost half of what we would deliver that day was only based and could only be delivered effectively by our powerpoint presentation.
The graphs and statistics we have researched about were included in that visual aid; the audience might have enjoyed and understood the discussion more if the projector was functioning well. All the same, we still managed to get through. In fact, in my opinion, we have achieved our objective of informing the audience about mobile nuclear drive, its advantages, disadvantages and consequences to the health and welfare of the society. However, no panel discussion is perfect. In fact, no speech is flawless; everyone has his/her own strengths and weaknesses. And in this paper, I am going to discuss the strong and weak points of our panel discussion. Let me begin with the “Speaker” aspects in the rubric for panel discussion. I admit that one of the weak spots of our group was the lack of enthusiasm in our facial expressions and voice projection. We, the panel members, also failed to establish rapport with one another. However, in my opinion, my groupmates and I tried our best to be as knowledgeable as possible with regards to our assigned topic. Without a doubt, I can tell that we looked prepared and credible, not just because we are engineering students and are expected to really have some grasp of these kind of topics but because we have really researched and internalized the issue in depth. We also wore appropriate formal attire and took our respective roles as different kinds of engineers seriously. As a result of these, we had some convincing power towards the audience that I felt their eagerness to listen and learn more about our subject matter. They