Post #2 Kevin Sanchez

 

The Reality of Growth: Watching Us Become "Changemakers"

I am going to be completely direct. Balancing hours of presentations with a mountain of coursework for other intensive classes is an exercise in endurance. By this point in the semester having to go back to the presentations in ponopto becomes a drag. Between studying the complexities of anatomy from other core classes to this, my mental bandwidth is stretched to its near limits. So, I will keep this direct for you.

While I was observing the recent rounds of "Changemaker" presentations covering the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s, I realized I had to separate my stretched bandwidth from my analysis. If I strip away the fatigue and look strictly at the data in front of me, the actual performance of my peers compared to our very first attempts at public speaking, the conclusion is clear to me. We are getting better than before.

The focus of these projects was historical figures who altered the course of society, but for me the real meta-narrative of these past few classes was the evolution of the speakers themselves. Growth isn't linear, and it isn't always pretty, but it was absolutely present during these last weeks.

 

The 1700s: The first step is always the hardest

Group four had the unenviable task of starting off this entire series of presentations with the 1700s. There is a psychological weight to being the baseline that everyone else will be measured against, and compare themselves with. They tackled the architects of the Constitution… figures like Washington, Franklin, and Hamilton.

What impressed me here wasn't just the history, but the raw reality of group dynamics. After the presentation, a group member admitted’ to the professor that they were incredibly nervous because they were the first group to present to the class. That anxiety is a common biological response, the exact "uncertainty reduction theory" we analyzed earlier this semester. Despite that, they pushed through it.

We also saw the less inviting side of group work, the one that keeps many people like me from enjoying group assignments with people I don’t trust: unreliable teammates. The professor had to directly address the fact that one member of the group did not participate in the presentation at all which is annoying. As someone who values accountability, seeing the rest of the group adapt and deliver their presentation despite having a missing member says something about their ability to adapt. You can’t control your environment or your teammates; you can only control your work. They did what they had to do and succeeded.

 

The 1800s: Getting the rhythm

By the time we reached the 1800s presentation, I could sense the classroom settling into a rhythm of increased comfort and confidence. Group three presented a range of completely different individuals, from the great Nikola Tesla to the raw courage of Harriet Tubman.

The 1800s presentation was a perfect example of how the content can determine engagement. When the speaker is actually connected to the weight they place on their topic, like discussing Harriet Jacobs surviving years in an attic to escape abuse, the delivery becomes way more natural. I noticed a slight decrease in the "manuscript speaking" that plagued our previous presentations. Instead of acting as human teleprompters, more students were stepping into the role of actual communicators. Though the spotlight effect was still here for the most part, it was visibly less than before. But the speakers were beginning to believe in themselves.

 

The 1900s

If the 1700s group built the foundation and the 1800s found the rhythm, Group one’s presentation on the 1900s demonstrated what happens when you take genuine ownership of the material…

This group was different. They didn't just summarize Wikipedia pages; they analyzed the mechanics of change. For example, one student didn't just give a surface level biography of Senator Frank Church, he dug deep into how Church exposed mass government surveillance long before the digital age of smartphones and the internet. That was very interesting not just because of the topic, but because he was so invested in the topic, and he researched it so extensively outside of the required requirements. This even made him to ask the professor for advice on how to change the presentation for other classes. That is what moving from passive compliance to active learning is.

Furthermore, the structure of the 1900s presentation showed a high level of situational awareness. The group leader tied everything together with a cohesive conclusion, noting that changemakers don't all look the same. Some led marches, some wrote music, and some exposed government wrongdoing. The professor praised that that day, saying it was an "excellent" presentation. This level of organization from the group proves that we are no longer just trying to survive the awkwardness of speaking in a Zoom room full of people you don’t know, but that we are actually trying to inform and persuade the audience.

 

Being Better Than Before

I am not pretending that I have suddenly developed a deep passion for the history of the 1700s, or that this class has magically superseded my other coursework. I am a realist.

However, I am also someone who very much respects progress. The entire premise of this assignment was to study people who forced the world to evolve. And ironically, by forcing us to stand up and manage unreliable group members and speak comprehensively about complex topics, this class is forcing us to evolve too.

Every team that presented showed growth. The pauses were shorter and the vocal delivery was more dynamic. As I think I mentioned at the beginning of this semester, you build the speech muscle by using it. The awkwardness is just the small price you have to pay for becoming a competent speaker.

Did every group execute flawlessly? No. But that isn't the point. The only metric that actually matters in a class like this is being better than you were before. And looking at the data from these past few weeks, it is safe to say that we are.