Post-Mortem: Group Research Presentation Course: Introduction to Environmental Science Assignment: 15-minute group presentation on renewable energy policy Team size: 4 students Due date: March 14 Written by: Student 1 (project lead) SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The assignment was a 15-minute group presentation on renewable energy policy for our Environmental Science class. We had to cover at least three policy approaches, cite at least five credible sources, and each group member had to speak for a portion of the presentation. We were a group of four students: Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4. SECTION 2: THE PLAN Our original plan was to divide the topic into three sections — solar policy, wind policy, and international comparisons — and assign each person one piece. Student 4 was going to handle the slides and coordinate everyone's sections into one cohesive deck. We decided to meet once in the library the week before the due date to review everything together. We did not set any earlier deadlines for individual sections. We mostly communicated through a group chat. SECTION 3: WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED The first week after the assignment was announced, not much happened. Everyone agreed they'd "look into their section" but there was no concrete plan for when drafts were due. Five days before the deadline, Student 2 messaged the group to ask how things were going. Student 3 said she had some notes but nothing written up. Student 4 hadn't started the slides. I (Student 1) had done research but hadn't written anything either. We tried to move the library meeting up but couldn't find a time that worked for all four of us. We ended up meeting as a group of three — Student 4 wasn't able to make it — two days before the presentation. At that meeting we realized we had overlapping research and gaps in our coverage. No one had done the international comparisons section thoroughly. Student 4 sent us a rough slide deck the night before the presentation that mixed everyone's notes together, but the formatting was inconsistent and some slides had no citations. On presentation day we ran almost 20 minutes, well over the 15-minute limit. Student 3's section felt rushed. We hadn't timed ourselves at all. SECTION 4: COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION We used a group chat which mostly worked for quick messages but didn't keep anyone accountable. Responsibilities were only vaguely defined at the start. "Student 2 does wind, Student 3 does solar" was the full extent of task delegation. Student 4's role as slide coordinator was agreed to but nobody checked in with Student 4 to see if that was too much responsibility or if they needed help. When Student 4 missed the library meeting, nobody reached out to ask why or to make sure they still had what they needed. There was no real conflict, but there was a lot of passive avoidance. Nobody wanted to be the one to push the group or admit they hadn't done enough. SECTION 5: WHAT WENT WRONG 1. No internal deadlines. We relied entirely on the final due date. Without earlier checkpoints, nobody had a reason to start until it was almost too late. If we had set a deadline for research drafts by March 7 (a full week before the due date), we would have had time to fill the gaps. 2. Task assignments were too vague. "Do the solar section" is not a task. It doesn't say how many slides, what sources are required, or when it's due. Each person should have had a small list of specific deliverables with a date attached. 3. We never practiced the presentation out loud. Going over the slides in a chat is not the same as doing a timed run-through. We only found out we were 5 minutes over time when we were already presenting. SECTION 6: WHAT WENT RIGHT The research itself was solid. Each person found good sources and the content was accurate and relevant to the topic. Once the three of us got together in the library, the meeting was productive. We made decisions quickly and divided up the remaining work. A structured meeting earlier in the project would have made a big difference. Student 2 was willing to coordinate last-minute communication when things stalled. That kind of proactive check-in was valuable and we should have built it into the plan from the start. SECTION 7: LESSONS AND CHANGES The most important lesson: a due date is not a plan. We treated the assignment as one task with one deadline instead of a project with multiple stages. Specific changes for next time: 1. Set internal deadlines at the first meeting. Before we leave the first group meeting, we will agree on a due date for research notes, a due date for written sections, and a date for a full run-through — all at least 2-3 days before the real deadline. 2. Write specific tasks, not vague topic assignments. Instead of "do the solar section," each person should leave the first meeting with a checklist: find 2 sources by date X, write 3-4 key points by date Y, send content to Student 4 by date Z. 3. Do at least one timed practice run. Even if it's just two people on a video call going through the slides, we need to hear ourselves say the words out loud and time it. One tool I want to try next time is a shared Google Doc that everyone can edit at the same time so we can see each other's progress without waiting for someone to send a file.