Bio 250/450- Student Presentations

Bio 250- Student Presentations Check one: Peer Evaluations Self Evaluation Self Evaluation after watching video

SPEAKER: Elise Boos Date: 24 Apr 2008 . Pres. # 2 Presentations will be ANONYMOUSLY evaluated. Summaries of scores received as well as verbatim written comments will be typed and delivered to each presenter. PLEASE use this evaluation sheet as a tool to help each other improve the quality of our presentations. Positive feedback and constructive criticism should be provided for each speaker in the written comments section at the bottom of the page.

1= needs major improvement 2 = needs improvement 3 = good 4 = very good 5 = outstanding

Category Score To be evaluated during the presentation

Background: Introduction to the topic, what is already known 1 2 3 4 5 Description of the most relevant previous study(s)

Justification for this research, what is not known, 1 2 3 4 5 Described why this is an important topic to discuss

Describe aims/purpose/hypotheses of the paper 1 2 3 4 5

How can this section be improved?  More about why this is important  What are peripheral hormones and GI signals? Used more definitions, consider audiences level of understanding  Don’t jump around when stating your BG info

______

General Overview:

A broad summary of the entire experiment 1 2 3 4 5 that makes clear the overall intent

Explanation of Methods

Methods and techniques are explained in 1 2 3 4 5 appropriate detail

The reasons for each step of the procedure or 1 2 3 4 5 inclusion of each group is provided

How can this section be improved? Data presentation/ evaluation:

The axes of graphs and data within each graph 1 2 3 4 5 and/or table is clearly explained

Figures are clearly explained 1 2 3 4 5

The “take-home message” from each figure 1 2 3 4 5 and/or table is clear

How can this section be improved?  Axes and layout of graph could be better explained  Need slightly simpler explanation. Maybe you should practice your graphs prior to presenting.  Explain what each color means before explaining the whole graph  Speak a little slower and clearer so that graphs are easier to comprehend. ______

Summary/ Conclusions: The research is summarized 1 2 3 4 5 before giving a justifiable conclusion.

How can this section be improved?

______

Discussion: Hypothesis revisited and addressed 1 2 3 4 5

Described the contribution of this paper to science 1 2 3 4 5

Identified strengths/weaknesses/limitations 1 2 3 4 5 of the paper

Final statement at end of presentation 1 2 3 4 5

How can this section be improved?  Once again a bit jumpy  Some parts seem a bit repetitive. Try to avoid too much repitition within a single section.

______

Handling of Questions Presenter made best attempt to answer 1 2 3 4 5 questions. To be evaluated after the presentation

Organization: The presentation flows logically and 1 2 3 4 5 smoothly in an orderly sequence.

The time devoted to each part of the paper 1 2 3 4 5 is appropriate

How can this section be improved?  See BG secton

Presentation Style: Speaks clearly, uses voice for emphasis 1 2 3 4 5

Make eye contact, engages audiences 1 2 3 4 5

Use of gestures 1 2 3 4 5

Word choice, pronunciation, professional language 1 2 3 4 5

Personal appearance, professional attire 1 2 3 4 5

Clarity of powerpoint slides (font, text, etc) 1 2 3 4 5

Use of animations 1 2 3 4 5

Use of images and diagrams 1 2 3 4 5

Overall professionalism of presentation 1 2 3 4 5

How can this section be improved?  Couldn’t see all of powerpint, made a few errors while speaking

______

General

Evidence of advance preparation 1 2 3 4 5

The presenter clearly understands this paper 1 2 3 4 5

Presenter helped me understand this paper 1 2 3 4 5

______

OVERALL QUALITY from 1-5 including one decimal place ______

How would you compare this presentation to other presentations? How would you compare it to previous presentations by the same presenter, if applicable?

______

For the Evaluator:

I read this paper Yes No Parts of it

Degree of difficulty of this paper (circle 1) easy moderate difficult very difficult

______

Written Comments

What the presenter did particularly well in priority order: top of list is best:  Uses good gestures. Good eye contact. Explained graphs in a way that was easy to understand.  Presenting graphs  Discussion was done well and conclusive. Questions were answered well. Enthusiasm added a lot.  1. Good introduction/background info. 2. Answered questions well 3. Time management  Overall presentation. Handling of questions  Explaining graphs and methods. Answering questions  Elise did a nice job with going back to her hypothesis and justifying her conclusion. Also, incorporating the class  Understood the topic well  1. Good job of being clear 2. Well prepared (knows every detail of paper) 3. Found problems of research 4. Engages audience well  The presenter did a very good job of describing the significance of the experiment and the data found from it.  Explaining the terms and processes  Handling questions – you were incredible in answering questions which shows that you understood the material. However, in your presentation I got the feeling that you were nervous and maybe felt unprepared (even though you were) and, therefore, not so confident on certain parts. Specific advice for improvement in priority order (top of list is top priority):  Try and stay on topic  Graphs were confusing and could have been explained better.  Eliminate saying “um” - Dress more dressy/business like  Put a little more effort into appearance – a little more time would allow others to see how professional you can be – you spent time on your presentation but your appearance is also a part of presentation.  Try to explain the graphs more clearly still hard to understand  Some of the graphs were a little confusing  I think she did an excellent job for what the task was.  The graphs used in the experiment were pretty difficult to understand, so maybe the presenter could have spent more time on explaining their significance.  Better explanations of graphs  Practice a clear explanation of procedures before you present because I felt that was an area you had not practiced prior to the presentation.