# data[].attributes.body
deer population -4- the absolute best
endangered species -1- could do better on videos
deforestation-3
trout fishing 1

# data[].attributes.body
Deer Population- 3 out of 4- was a really good topic but you could have provided an interview so i could have a better understanding and you could have provided a more organized PSA
Endangered Species- 2 out of 4- you could have given more information that you researched instead of using others videos to explain your topic

# data[].attributes.body
global warming- 3
deforestation- 3
controlling deer population- 3
trout fishing-2
Maddie

# data[].attributes.body
endangered species- 2
deforestation- 3
Global warming- 2.5
controlling deer population- 3
trout fishing- 1

# data[].attributes.body
endangerd s

# data[].attributes.body
global warming-2  could have made it more logical
endangered species-2 presentation couldve been better
deforestation-2 it was too simple
controlling deer population-3 good except for interview
trout fishing-3

# data[].attributes.body
i give it a 3 because it had pictures of fishies
sammie

# data[].attributes.body
Global Warming-3
Endangered species- 1
Deforestation- 4
Trout fishing- .2
Controlling deer population- 4

Global Warming- Could have been a little clearer when giving the information. Copying and pasting a lot of the information

Endangered species- Didn't have enough information in the slides.
No experiment
Hard to understand the interview

Deforestation- Independent variable and dependent variable for the experiment.

Trout fishing- Didn't have most of the requirements

Controlling deer population- Didn't do a interview

# data[].attributes.body
Global Warming- 3
good information didn't do their own experiment
Deforestation- 3
did own experiment
lots of information
could had data, didn't have a slide with the control, independent variable etc.

Controlling Deer Populations- 3
good information and graphs experiment that was good
Endangered Species- 1.5
More videos than information (they didn't make the videos) the interview was good
No experiment
Trout Fishing-  1
Barley any information
No experiment
No interview
No interview

# data[].attributes.body
1
No experiment, No interview
Not enough information

# data[].attributes.body
Endangered Species- 3 interview was hard to understand
Global Warming- 3.5 we could have provided information that would have been easier to understand
Deforestation- 2 the slides could have been more organized
Trout Fishing-1 did not have the information needed

# data[].attributes.body
3
Could have done your own experiment. Lots of information, but it was hard to follow

# data[].attributes.body
1
the whole presentation was pictures and videos. The interview was good but hard to follow.

# data[].attributes.body
endangered species- 2
controlling deer population- 3.5
global warming- 3

# data[].attributes.body
deforstation wasa 3
speak louder next time!!!!!!!!!!

# data[].attributes.body
4
Could have had an interview. Poster could have been made easier to read. Can't think of anything else that could be improved

# data[].attributes.body
global warming was a 3

# data[].attributes.body
Global Warming
Rate: 3.8
Suggestions: We could have done our own experiment and we could have looked more into how people, individually could reduce global warming.
Controlling Deer Population
Rate: 3
Suggestions: They could have made a interview to make their grade better and make the presentation more appealing and convincing. And to also get professionals insight and information.
Endangered Species
Rate: 2.8
Suggestions: The group could have made a poster to better improve their grade and make their presentation more persuading and satisfying to the readers.
Deforestation
Rate: 3.5
Suggestions: The group could have included more data in their presentation to support their topic better. Could have made the poster more easier to read also.
Trout Fish
Rate: 0.5
He had a short presentation with not much information. I did not learn a lot about the species of trout fish. He copied and pasted his information onto his slides and he did not have an experiment. He also did not have an interview or a PSA. He should've have spent more time on his project as a whole to hit more of the vital points of his topic.

# data[].attributes.body
4 out of 4-Global warming had a very good topic and it was presented very well. It could have more information on the topic.

4 out of 4-Deforestation was very well done   and it had good information on its topic. Although the experament was very good it should have the resultes of the test writen down. It could have talked about visual observations or quantiy of water colleceted at the end of the project.
3 out of 4- Endangered Species was very eye chatching and although a experament would have been vary hard for this topic their still are other ways to test loss of animal life, like loss of habitat.

2 out of 4- Deer population did have a good topic about a real problem and offered a sulotion to that problem. However, it should have a interview.

1out of 4-Trout fishing was a project that the group cared very much for and they delivered a solid message. Of course it should have had a experiment, interview, PSA, and it proably could have been longer.

# data[].attributes.body
Deforestation id rate a 2.7 it was simple and straightforward.

Controlling Deer populations id rate a 3 it was more interesting then alot of others.

Endangered Species id rate a 3 for the fact it was simple and there was some interesting animals i never heard about.

Global Warming id rate a 4 not being biased but it was a lot of examples and a bunch of definitions and data to prove it.

# data[].attributes.body
sammie

# data[].attributes.headline
the endangered species was a 4!! the deer population was a 3!! :) dona

# data[].attributes.subject
the endangered species was a 4!! the deer population was a 3!! :) dona

# data[].attributes.body
the other two is a #3 as well!
trout fishing is a 1 because no good info about it.

# data[].attributes.body
Deforestation- rate 3.5
The only improvement i would suggest is making it more understanding, some of the information being described was confusing.
Controlling Deer population- rate 4
The only improvement we needed was time management to make sure we get everything done.
Global Warming- rate 3
Improvement could be putting in more situations that we could relate to.
Endangered species- rate 3
Improvement could be making sure the videos used are really easy to follow, and why we should save those species.
Trout Fish- rate 3
Improvement could've been more information or put some more pictures in there.

# data[].attributes.body
sammie

# data[].attributes.body
3
Our experiment could have had more data and could have been more well orginized

# data[].attributes.body
Deforestation- rate 3
i think that they could have stated what they did with the experiment a little bit better than they did and could have made there flipgrid a little bit longer

Controlling Deer Populations- rate 3.5
i think we did very will on everything except that we didnt get to do an interview

Global Warming- rate 4
they had a very good presentation and the interviews was good but they could have explained what individuals could do to help global warming more than just what big corporations could do

Endangered species- rate 2
i think the presentation could have been better and i didnt like their video

Trout Fishing- rate 0.5
the presentation was short and didnt have a whole lot of information he could of added more information to make it better he also could have added an interview and a psa to make it better

# data[].attributes.body
I think the control the deer population needed a interview but other than that I can't think of anything else that would make it any better. they get a 3.8.

Deforestation could have had a better experiment and data for the experiment. but they put a lot of heard work into it. they get a 3.5.

The global warming needed and experiment. but over all pretty good. they get a 3.6.

the endangered species needed a bunch more information. i didn't really understand what they was talking about and they told their information with videos on the internet. they get a 1.8.

# data[].attributes.body
Deforestation- (2.5) They could have used more information like described it a little better.

Controlling deer populations-(3.9) I thought we could have explained a little better and no interview.

Global Warning-(3.5) It was very logical but they could have put it into a relatable situatuion.

Endangered species-(2) They could have explained there project a little better

Trout Fishing-(1) he could have explained a little better and gave some more info on his topic

# data[].attributes.body
i think we should have put more explanation on the project part of the presentation.
Deer population-3
They did really good. They needed more wording on the charts for the deer population.
Global warming-2
they did okay. the explaination was to the point but could use a little more.
endangered species-1
It was all over the place and wasnt a complete presentation. They need to do the project and put more explaination that makes since into the presentation.
trout fishing-1 needed more information and needed to do the project without copy and pasting everything on it.

# data[].attributes.body
Deforestation(2)- I feel like some of the information was expressed in a confusing way or sometimes I just didn't quite understand... I liked the idea of the powerpoint in general.

Controlling Deer Populations(3.5)- The ideas of this was very interesting. Information was very trustworthy and logical. Only bad part was the presentation of the powerpoint and no interview

Global Warming( 3.8)- it was very logical and presentation was good. Only thing is needed to kind of put it into a relatable situation. instead of just reading it straight from the slides.

Endangered Species(2.0)- Didn't really get the information I thought i needed. PowerPoint wasn't plain it got my attention.