Identify FIVE specific things in your slides that you could have done differently.
We could have included less words on our slides.
We could have prepared more slides specifically for the Q&A section.
We could have had slides that specifically focused on our micro and macro impact.
We could have had slides that talked about our future goals for this project.
We could have had slides discussing the obstacles we think we will face and how we will work around them.
Identify FIVE specific ways in which you could have delivered your presentation better.
We could have been more concise and clear with our reasoning and purpose for the project. We only had one slide for our reasoning, but we could have reinforced that throughout the presentation.
We could have introduced ourselves earlier in the presentation. We put our team photo in the middle of the presentation as we were presenting the partners, but this pacing might be hard to follow along.
We could have had examples of the prompting questions that we are going to include in our tour and other concrete examples of how we are going to make the tour interactive, including a prototype.
We could have also brought a bit more energy to represent our collective enthusiasm for our project. We could have incorporated more hand gestures to keep our presentation from being stiff.
We could have made a video walk through of the gallery and/or the ILC in order to show the audience a more in depth view of the space we are working in.
Identify FIVE specific ways you could have built your credibility further.
We could have included more research specifically referencing the use of technology in special education.
We could have included testimonials from Centennial School Staff on how the Immersive Learning Center impacts the students and their learning.
We could have included examples of our competition: established museum tours or tours on Matterport, and contrast them against our tailored content.
We could have had more progress on our first tour to show in order to present to the judges what our work is going to look like.
We could have given an example of the research we had already completed, such as attaching a screenshot of our Google Sheet that has all of the art piece information.
Identify FIVE specific questions that you could have answered better. What was the question, how did you respond, and how should you have responded?
The one question that we were not equipped to answer was the logistics of licensing. We only knew a little bit about licensing artwork from LUAG, but we could not answer how we would acquire licensing from other art galleries for our future virtual tours outside of the Lehigh University campus.
The question about why we were interested in this project in the first place–only one of us got to really answer it. I wish we would’ve had more time to let all of us respond, but we got cut off. In the future, we should shorten our answers so everyone has a chance to speak.
There was one question about who our audience was specifically for the project. In our presentation, we mainly said we were making tours for neurodivergent students. The judges wanted to specify if the tours would be intended for people with disabilities. We clarified that it was intended for students with learning and behavioral disorders.
We could have come with questions prepared for the judges because around minute 12 they ran out of questions for us and it was just silent in the room.
There was a question regarding our future plans regarding other art galleries that we would want to partner with in the future like the MET. We said that we had a connection through the Lehigh Art Gallery, Dr. William Crow, who worked in the MET in the past. Continuously, we should have elaborated more like mentioned an action plan for how we would secure that connection with our future art galleries.