ORAL PRESENTATIONS FOR THE COURSE: LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY

Bob Corbett, instructor
Phil 3100.01: Literature and Philosophy Fall 2000

Schedule for who gives oral presentations and when are below the description of the assignment.

THE ASSIGNMENT; PREPARATION HINTS; GRADING CRITERIA

• ASSIGNMENT:  Give a 5-10 minute oral presentation of a serious philosophically interesting (even if you reject the position) review of the book in question.

• PRE-PREPARATION TASKS:
  1. Read the novel.
  2. First do some library and/or internet research and discover a siginificant review of the book with interesting philosophical content
  3. Read the review with care.

• THE ORAL PRESENTATION ITSELF:
  1. First present the class with the reviewer's position. In this section do not have one single word of evaluation. Merely share with us the review's view of the book. De-emphasize the PLOT analysis and go for the MEANING analysis which the reviewer presents.
  2. Secondly, evaluate the reviewer's position. It is in this section where you give us your own view.
  3. Carefully defend your positions with well-chosen arguments.
  4. During the entire oral presentation please do not quote the author directly. Tell it all in your own words.
  5. Please speak loudly and clearly.
  6. Please do not READ a paper. Rather, prepare an oral presentation. You may use notes if you need them, but do not just read a prepared text.
  7. The first part of the oral -- the presentation of the argument of the review you select -- should be less than 50% of the presentation. Be sure to give us the citation of where you found it, most likely posting this on the white board before you begin.
  8. The second part of the oral -- your analysis of the position of the reviewer you present -- should be the main portion of your report and more than 50% of your time should be devoted to it.

• THINGS I WILL ESPECIALLY NOTE AND LOOK FOR IN GRADING THE ORAL:
  1. Does the review chosen appear to be (according to your report) one with significant philosophical content?
  2. Is the first section, the analysis of the review, presented in such a way that it is:
     • Entirely a description of the reviewer's central philosophical position?
     • Entirely a description and no evaluation at all?
     • Less than 50% of the total presentation?
  3. Is the second section, your evaluation of the position of the reviewer, presented in such a way that it is:
     • Accurate to the position reported?
     • Significant to our discussion at hand?
     • More than 50% of the total presentation?
  4. Is the presentation a minumum of 5 minutes?
  5. Is the presentation no more than 10 minutes?
  6. Did the student give an oral presentation (with or without notes) and not read a paper?
  7. Did the student speak loudly and clearly and at a pace which allowed the class to follow the presentation?
  8. Was the presentation in standard English?

• THE GRADES THEMSELVES:
  • A grade of A will mean: The oral was at least 5 minutes long, but no longer than 10 minutes. The presentation was divided into two parts, the first shorter section being an accurate analysis of the review used. The second longer portion being a philosophically accurate evaluation of the source material. The whole of the presentation was a SIGNIFICANT philosophical contribution to the understanding of the novel under consideration. Finally, that the oral was not a read paper, but an oral presentation, presented loudly, clearly and at a pace which made it easy for the class to follow along.
  • A grade of B will mean: All parts of the presentation looked for in the grade of A were there and quite strong. However, in some matter or other there was a noticeable performance of less than excellence, but nonetheless, the total presentation and contribution still came across as a superior contribution to our study of the novel at hand.
  • A grade of C will mean: All parts of the presentation were basically in order and the sum, which not of a quality that would rate excellent or higher on the criteria expressed above, was nonetheless acceptable work for a university level philosophy course. If either the minimum time was not reached or the maximum was exceeded, the a grade of C would be the likely highest grade possible.
  • A grade of D will mean: Some more serious versions of deviation from the criteria expressed above were present in the oral presentation.
  • A grade of F may mean anyone of three things:
    1. The presentation was not given as scheduled.
    2. Significant failures to meet the assignment at the level of reasonable university level expectations of thought, attention to detail, attention to the time guidelines or presentation expectations. (Specifics will be pointed out).
    3. The actual presentation itself (the form rather than the content) was seriously flawed. This could mean the time peramaters or such things as clarity of expression, or volume of voice or use of the English language. All of these would be expected to be used in a reasonable fashion for university level work. However, a grade of F on these grounds would require some quite serious deviation from the expectations listed above.

  ---

  My Philosophy Page

  Webster U. Philosophy Department

  ---

  Children	Critical Thinking	Current Semester	Education	Existentialism
  Miscellaneous Topics	Moral Philosophy	Peace Issues	Simple

  ---

  HOME

  Bob Corbett corbetre@webster.edu