Oral Research Report Feedback

     Jessica

Class Avg

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

Personal Avg

Introduction: 4.4
Method: 4
Results: 3.6
Delivery: 4.4
Accessible: 4.1
Visual aids: 4.3

     Jessica

07/01/2016 -

You explained the design (your request): you took time to help us understand the design and I felt that you had a good overview of all the elements of this particular study. I felt that it was a little quick compared to other pieces but you did a good job of getting to the meat, or important things in the work.

I liked the way...you talked through your introduction really well. I think you gave us a good background with regards to why this was important and what led up to this.

Talked about the limitations thoughtfully and you included an evaluative element.

Got to talk about the findings. Your verbiage in this was great. This was a great scholarly presentation.

I love the visual on the design and I thought you did a good job of talking about the issue. You have always done a good job on your powerpoints to be able to demonstrate the key ideas of any of these notions.

I thought this was solid. I don't have any suggestions this time around.


07/01/2016 -

I liked the way... you used visuals to communicate the multivariate approach. Your background knowledge and conversational language helped clarify the issues involved. Excellent pacing, nice finish!

One suggestion is... continue to work on pacing, including all important/relevant aspects of the study and boil down to why this matters.


06/29/2016 -

I liked the way... you made a clear case for the need for the study and continued to contextualize the study. I like that you also brought up areas of lack of clarity in the study and issues in sampling. I like that you used visuals and bullet points and I think that if you had 6 minutes instead of 5 you would have nailed this from start to finish.

One suggestion is... you explained some of the methods in the results section and I was a little stuck trying to interpret the study and understand the procedure they used to obtain the results at the same time.


06/29/2016 -

I liked the way...you were able to offer us the context on the background behind the RQ; I think it was evident that you understood why this article was important to the work that you were doing (you were able to trace back the relevant literature.

Good evaluation of the design of the sample. You may have spent a little too much on this evaluation (if you end up running out of time). I would have liked a little more discussion of the actual survey/method

Results: The first part with the results was solid; time cut out on you while still in results even though you had good conclusions and limitations.

Pacing of the visual aids was good -- you have some good elements there

One suggestion is... okay, last time I saw you had the same problem. You may have to cut from the beginning.


06/27/2016 -

I liked the way...your constructed your slides, specifically your sampling slides, and i liked the thoroughness of your presentation.

One suggestion is... to maybe discuss the


06/27/2016 -

I liked the way you covered lots of ground and are so accessible.

One suggestion is fewer details on unessential things. Less on methods.


06/24/2016 -

I liked the way...you made it very explicit why the study is important and its implications towards the field, to great specificity. It seems like you approached the article with a critical lens right from the introduction. This was extremely accessible (maybe made that way by your presentation's design).

One suggestion is... The use of time was biased towards the introduction. The slides are slightly text heavy.


06/24/2016 -

I liked the way...you explained the rationale (the who and the what); I think that you did a solid job of talking about relevant scholarship -- I would have liked to hear which of that research was there (briefly) but you actually went to that particular space. You were one of the most thorough of all the people with regards to explain the question as well as their appropriate. I liked how you were able to explain the concept of "which"

Similar to what we saw in the other ones in our group. You told us alot of the what and not why they used that particularly methodology. Your overall visual of the mixed method design was BEAUTIFUL and I would have leveraged that more to be able to have the material to be able to speak about.

I only gave a lower grade on the results not because I didn't think you couldn't do it well, but that it didn't fit into the 5 minutes so we technically didn't hear it.

One suggestion is...your introduction segment went 3 minutes and 30 seconds of your 5 minutes. You may want to start thinking of slides as equally a specific amount of time. I liked when you got to the Mixed Method design (after three slides of text) and I might lead with that to cue you, since I think that slide would be the most helpful with regards to being able to classify things. Your visual aid limited you though in terms of the time component.

Very articulate speaker.