You can either focus on a few of the experiences listed above or talk about them more generally
a) compared to the Spring (before you came)
b) in relation to the historical and architectural landscape of Berlin (as represented by Ladd in his book)
c) in relation to the topics of globalization, borders, migration and the arts (from the Spring seminar)
However, I found it particularly interesting to hear the way our guides talked about former Germany. Maybe this was just me but I felt like a lot of the language they used to describe the actions of others was slightly one-sided. For example, at Sachsenhausen, our guide was quick to group all guards as abusive and sadistic. Maybe she was just used to giving tours to younger groups of kids, but throughout my education I've found that history is rarely that one-sided.
Additionally, I thought that much of the language aims to distance Germans of today from the Germans of the past. For example at the Memorial to the Murdered Jews there is a timeline of events detailing key turning points, mass murders etc. The timeline wills things like "Heinrich Himmler, etc ordered the mass murder, extermination, concentration camp opening, etc." While obviously someone ordered these types of tragic events, to kill upwards of 6 million individuals you need more than an order, you need complaint people to carry out those orders. I suppose ultimately what these observations come down to is this fundamental question of how could a country have supported these actions. Perhaps that's why the events and guilt of WWII are still so engrained in the identity of Germans today.