Papers with multiple spelling, punctuation, and grammatical or stylistic errors will not be accepted until the errors have been corrected.
Note: Substantive outlines of your presentation must be e-mailed to me and to all other class members 24 hours before the final presentation session. The point of this part of the assignment is to encourage you to give a well-organized presentation and to provide the rest of us with a sneak preview of sorts, so that we might be thinking of questions to ask you during the discussion session after your presentation.
Format: Prepare a 7-10 minute presentation, based on your major paper for the course, in which you address the concerns described below. If possible, address these items in the order that follows. This should help you to organize your remarks; it will definitely help us to follow them.
(1) State what you were trying to explore (your research question) and why (you may mention your personal reasons for pursuing this question, but focus primarily on why it is an important question to explore; this is your 'rationale' or 'justification' for your project), and how you went about it (your strategies or methods of approach and interpretation).
(2) State your thesis, summarize the main points of your argument, and state your conclusions (where you may want to reflect upon the larger significance of your findings).
(3) If there is time, discuss what problems, if any, that you encountered, what else you had hoped to do, but did not have time for, and/or what new ideas for further possible research or experimentation occurred to you while working on this project.
Discussion: Presentations will be followed by a brief (5-10 minute) discussion and a short (approximately 5 minute) break to complete peer reviews.
Some Pointers: PRACTICE your presentation. Time it carefully so that you know you can meet the time limits without rushing (and without falling way short!). If you are soft-spoken, make a conscious effort to speak up. Since most of us tend to talk fast, remind yourself to slow down. Feel free to refer to your notes occasionally, but don't stay glued to them. Make eye contact with other students in the audience, not just the professor. Try to avoid distracting mannerisms (tapping on the table, pulling at your hair, etc.). If you talk about some problems that you see in your work at present, don't put yourself down. Evaluating one's own work is often difficult and requires considerable skill. It shouldn't be confused with self-deprecation, which is usually a defensive tactic, an unconscious habit, or both.
Fielding Questions
The discussion session after your presentation is an opportunity to learn more about your project and its possibilities. While it is important to be able to support your position, it is also important to stay flexible and receptive. Try not to get defensive.
1. In the discussion period, listen carefully to people's questions and try to respond to them (rather than to what you wished they had asked). Before you answer, take a moment to reflect on the question. This shows respect for the questioner and helps to ensure you are actually responding to the question that was asked. If you are unsure, restate the question or ask for clarification.
2. Wait for the questioner to finish her question before you respond. The one exception is if she rambles on and on. Then you have to try to intervene tactfully. You could do so by saying, "Are you asking whether…?" Try to sum up what seems to be her main question and respond to that. If one person is dominating the discussion, try to make eye contact with others and ask them if they have questions.
3. If you can't answer a question, just say so. If appropriate, you could try to suggest resources which would help the questioner to address the question themselves. Or you could ask the audience for their suggestions.
4. If there are not enough questions, bring up one or two of your own, perhaps ones that you thought you might be asked, but weren't, and that you would like to talk about.
(From Jeff Radel's "Preparing Talks" - with some of my comments interspersed)
Peer Reviews: Oral Presentations
Assess the presentation according to the criteria listed below, using this scale:
Well demonstrated=1; Adequately demonstrated=2; Inadequately demonstrated=3
1. Overall Content: The presentation showed evidence of significant intellectual content and investigation.
SCORE:___
Comments:
2. Clarity: The argument was clearly presented, including the thesis or research question, main points, and conclusions.
SCORE:___
Comments:
3. Organization and Coherence: The presentation proceeded logically and smoothly with clear transitions from point to point.
SCORE:___
Comments:
4. Delivery: The presenter adhered to time limits. It is evident that she practiced her presentation and mastered her material (speaking from notes rather than reading). She spoke clearly, with assurance, and not too quickly.
SCORE:___
Comments:
5. Fielding Questions: The presenter responded seriously and effectively to questions and suggestions.
SCORE:___
Comments: