The Group Presentation Role

I would slow the conversation down and test the premise. The request is framed as strategy, but the rubric does not reward accent or speed, and Liang has done his share. Reducing his role without telling him would be exclusion dressed up as efficiency. I would ask the teammates what specific clarity problem they observed: Is it pace, volume, jargon, or something else? That matters because the fix might be rehearsal, slides with clear structure, or a different speaking order, not removing a teammate. I would remind them that the presentation is assessed on content, teamwork, and clarity, and that an inclusive process is part of teamwork. I would also name the risk: if Liang finds out he was sidelined, the group could face a complaint, and the instructor may see it as unfair. I would not agree to a plan behind Liang's back. I would propose a practice session where everyone gives and receives feedback, and we adjust based on the actual delivery, not assumptions.

I would talk to Liang, but not as a fait accompli. I would be transparent that the team has discussed presentation roles and that I want his input. I would avoid framing it as 'your English is a problem.' Instead I would say, 'We are thinking about how to divide the slides so everyone plays to their strengths and the presentation is clear. How do you feel about the current plan?' I would ask whether he wants more or less speaking time and what support would help, such as rehearsing pronunciation of key terms, using notes, or co-presenting a section. If he prefers a smaller role, that is his choice; the problem is imposing it without asking. I would also watch for signs that he is being scapegoated. If he says he has been left out, I would acknowledge that and correct it. The conversation should protect his dignity and give him real agency, not just inform him of a decision already made.

I would treat inclusion and marks as compatible, not opposites. The group's fear is that a slower speaker will cost points, but the rubric does not penalize speed, and judges often reward clear structure and confident delivery. I would focus on what actually improves clarity: a well-organized deck, signposting, rehearsed transitions, and balanced speaking time. If Liang's delivery needs work, coaching is fair; sidelining is not. I would set a team norm: roles are assigned by interest and skill, not by who sounds most like a native speaker. I would also build in a full run-through so the group can see the actual performance rather than speculate. If a teammate still insisted on excluding Liang, I would say I am not comfortable with that and suggest we raise the concern with the instructor as a team. That is not escalation for its own sake; it is a way to get guidance before an unfair decision is made. The grade matters, but so does how we treat each other under pressure.