<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Foreign Affairs Handled with Violence by Mr. Rice</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/apush1718/y1x4nzm7racf</link>
      <description>By Victoria Radke</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2017-01-30 14:21:45 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2017-08-03 17:43:46 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Foreign Affairs Handled with Violence</title>
         <author>apush1718</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/apush1718/y1x4nzm7racf/wish/150233112</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Victoria Rdke</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAQVXRqNsJg" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-30 14:24:47 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/apush1718/y1x4nzm7racf/wish/150233112</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Elizabeth Munn</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/apush1718/y1x4nzm7racf/wish/150430234</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Row 1: 3<br>She states the research question and clearly explains her methods and her argument is present throughout the presentation. The conclusion was absent but only because this wasn't the final presentation.<br>Row 2: 6<br>Again there wasn't a conclusion, but she still presents her argument as well as scholarly findings/evidence that explain the implication that US foreign policy influences domestic terrorism.<br>Row 3: 2<br>I was a bit unsure of whether to give this a 2 or a 3 because while she does address how her research and findings would lead to what would be her conclusion, she does not explain the steps of the process. Because she did not explain the steps, I scored it a 2. <br>Row 4: 6<br>She did well presenting. She used her hands too much and stumbled a little, but none of it distracted from the argument.&nbsp;<br>I couldn't grade rows 5,6,7 because those deal with the oral defense and in this presentation, there wasn't an oral defense.&nbsp;</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-31 03:45:18 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/apush1718/y1x4nzm7racf/wish/150430234</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Gavin Brown</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/apush1718/y1x4nzm7racf/wish/150487571</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Row 1: 3<br>She states her research question at the beginning of the her presentation. Later in the presentation, she links her methods to how she will answer the question which aligns her methods with her question.<br>Row 2: 6<br>She went into detail about the Fort Hood shooter and why he turned against the United States. She showed that his time overseas created the domestic terrorist.<br>Row 3- 2<br>She provided evidence that supported her hypothesis; however, she did not go into detail about how she created her conclusion and argument.<br>Row 4: 4<br>She did not do anything to take away from her argument. Sometimes I thought that she was reading off of the board too much and not providing enough eye contact which would have engaged the audience in an effective manner.<br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-31 11:43:56 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/apush1718/y1x4nzm7racf/wish/150487571</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Skylar Biedenharn Row 1: Score – 3. She does a really good job at identifying the project question and goal and also she constantly returns and references to her goal so that you never lose sight of her intentions even when she’s discussing other aspects of her paper. Row 2: Score – 6. Although she doesn’t have a completed conclusion (because this isn’t the final presentation) she does explain how the actions of the government have fostered this domestic terrorism, which I believe connects with the “explains consequences.” Row 3: Score – 2. I believe this row scores a two because she didn’t explains the steps she went through in the process, instead she just talked about certain people that might support her hypothesis. Row 4: Score – 6. Overall she was very interesting and engaging. She had a few times where she stumbled over her words or said “um” but it wasn’t entirely distracting from the presentation. However, I found her slides to be the distracting factor and would have liked to see a more concise summary of the topic on each slide. Row 5: Score – 2. Especially during the Introduction slide, she does a very good job of providing her reasoning for choosing America as her area of study and then domestic terrorism as the specific type of terrorism. Row 6: Score – 2. I feel like she really got these point at the section of her presentation titled “Findings and Evidence.” She described the men’s backgrounds and related them to the idea of domestic terrorism being enforced by the government. Row 7: Score – 1. I don’t really see much self-reflection in this presentation. </title>
         <author>apush1718</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/apush1718/y1x4nzm7racf/wish/150502860</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-31 13:06:02 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/apush1718/y1x4nzm7racf/wish/150502860</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
