Oral Research Report Feedback


Class Avg

Introduction: 4.3
Method: 4
Results: 3.9
Delivery: 4.3
Accessible: 4.2
Visual aids: 4

Personal Avg

Introduction: 4.1
Method: 4.1
Results: 3.5
Delivery: 3.6
Accessible: 3.8
Visual aids: 4


07/01/2016 -

I liked the way you provided the logic model to help your audience make better sense of the presented study. I also appreciate the details you gave about the methods, which was very helpful for me to understand the results better.

One suggestion is to spend more time on the limitation and implications.

07/01/2016 -

I liked the way...provides clear logic model and demonstrates understanding of the purpose

One suggestion is... a little flat--change up tone a bit, and to get through the presentation (obviously)--2.5 minutes is too much time was spent first three things, and to include a little more visual and less text in the slides

06/29/2016 -

I liked the way you structured your presentation. Everything was very clear and it helped guide your oral discussion.

One suggestion is to keep up the great work!

06/29/2016 -

I liked the way...you provided context for what the terms involved in the study, how the authors defined them, and what was of interest in the study.

One suggestion is... continue to work on professional tone, language, etc.

06/27/2016 -

I liked the way your argument was clear and I wasn't overwhelmed by the information you were sharing.

One suggestion is leave yourself more time for results, and maybe summarize the method more quickly.

06/27/2016 -

I liked the way...that you took the time at the onset to discuss what "hypermedia" was supposed to be. You explained the background of this study pretty well. Particularly with taking the time to talk about scaffolds.

For the purpose of tracking, you were at 2:30 and still on the introduction. This is an area that you might want to think about how to shorten based on what we saw in the last time as well. I think you did a good job reviewing the scoring of this -- you did a nice job keeping that short and to the point.

You got to results but were unable to clear limitations/implications.

One suggestion is... the visual aids have alot of text; I would try to break it up ever so slightly in order to make things successful. You did make things pretty accessible through your discussion.

06/24/2016 -

I liked the way...
You described your logic model. You gave some really clear examples of the outcomes. The visual aids were helpful in conceptualizing what they were doing. You did a nice job of using the slides but elaborating.
One suggestion is... begin by defining epistemological belief.

06/24/2016 -

I found that you did a good job of explaining what was going on in terms of the research question; you used a good logical model demonstration. Would be good to go a little more into detail with regards to the topic itself.

I thought the overview of the method was good, you explained it succinctly without getting into detail that was beyond us (it's accessibility was pretty good).

Your visual aid helped in terms of crafting the method. You were somewhat text heavy with regards to the visuals. That was generally fine, however. Good breakdown of the time but we didn't get to limitations and implications (which is why I went a little lower on the score of the results segment since we didn't get to see it all).

I liked the way...you crafted new models for us to be able to be able to understand what the study was about. The first logic model was solid, the second we didn't get as much explanation through.

One suggestion is to work on pacing. I think that the time goes really fast (I will probably fall into this trap, so hey, it's something that we all need to work on).