PUBH 8546: Advanced Analysis of Community Health Data and Surveillance in Public

PUBH 8546: Advanced Analysis of Community Health Data and Surveillance in Public Health

Peer Feedback Rubric

Three Minute Thesis (3MT) Criteria for COMPREHENSION AND CONTENT

Expectation Met

Expectation Not Met

Feedback

Did the presentation provide an understanding of the background and significance to the research question being addressed, while explaining terminology and avoiding jargon?

Presentation provides an understanding of the background and significance to the research question being addressed, while explaining terminology and avoiding jargon.

Presentation does not provide an understanding of the background and significance to the research question being addressed, and/or does not explain terminology and avoid jargon.

Did the presentation clearly describe the impact and/or results of the research, including conclusions and outcomes?

Presentation clearly describes the impact and/or results of the research, including conclusions and outcomes.

Presentation does not clearly describe the impact and/or results of the research, including conclusions and outcomes.

Did the presentation follow a clear and logical sequence?

Presentation follows a clear and logical sequence.

Presentation does not follow a clear and logical sequence.

Was the thesis topic, research significance, results/impact and outcomes communicated in language appropriate to a non-specialist audience?

The thesis topic, research significance, results/impact and outcomes are communicated in language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.

The thesis topic, research significance, results/impact and/or outcomes are not communicated in language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.

Did the presenter spend adequate time on each element of their presentation – or did they elaborate for too long on one aspect or was the presentation rushed?

The presenter spends adequate time on each element of their presentation without elaborating for too long on one aspect or rushing the presentation.

The presenter does not spend adequate time on each element of their presentation, either elaborating for too long on one aspect or rushing the presentation.

Was the presentation completed within the specified timeframe?

Presentation was completed within the specified timeframe.

Presentation was not completed within the specified timeframe.

Three Minute Thesis (3MT) Criteria for ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION

Expectation Met

Expectation Not Met

Feedback

Did the presentation follow a clear and logical sequence?

Presentation follows a clear and logical sequence.

Presentation does not follow a clear and logical sequence.

Did the oration make the audience want to know more?

Oration makes the audience want to know more.

Oration does not make the audience want to know more.

Was the presenter careful not to trivialize or generalize their research?

Presenter is careful not to trivialize or generalize their research.

Presenter trivializes or generalizes their research.

Did the presenter convey enthusiasm for their research?

Presenter conveys enthusiasm for their research.

Presenter does not convey enthusiasm for their research.

Did the presenter capture and maintain their audience’s attention?

Presenter captures and maintains their audience’s attention.

Presenter does not capture or maintain their audience’s attention.

Did the speaker have sufficient vocal presence and vocal range; maintain a steady pace, and have a confident tone?

Speaker has sufficient vocal presence and vocal range; maintains a steady pace, and has a confident tone.

Speaker does not have sufficient vocal presence and vocal range; maintain a steady pace, and /or have a confident tone.

Were the vocals clear and free from external noise and distractions?

Vocals are clear and free from external noise and distractions.

Vocals are not clear and free from external noise and distractions.

Did the PowerPoint slide enhance the presentation – was it clear, legible, and concise? Did the style and formatting make the slides easy to read (i.e., font size, colors, transitions, number of words per slide)? Were they aesthetically pleasing?

PowerPoint slides enhanced the presentation and were clear, legible, and concise. The style and formatting made the slides easy to read (i.e., font size, colors, transitions, number of words per slide). The slides were aesthetically pleasing.

PowerPoint slides did not enhance the presentation and/or were unclear, illegible, and were lengthy or wordy. The style and formatting made the slides difficult to read (i.e., font size, colors, transitions, number of words per slide). The slides were not aesthetically pleasing.

Did the presenter adhere to the Universal Design Principles (Love, Baker & Devine, 2019) by providing information both verbally and visually? Also providing a transcript for hearing impaired.

Presenter adhered to the Universal Design Principles (Love, Baker & Devine, 2019) by providing information both verbally and visually, and provided a transcript for hearing impaired.

Presentation did not adhere to the Universal Design Principles (Love, Baker & Devine, 2019) by providing information both verbally and visually, and/or failed to provide a transcript for hearing impaired.

References

Love, M. L., Baker, J. N., & Devine, S. (2019). Universal Design for Learning: Supporting College Inclusion for Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 42(2), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143417722518

Mynbayeva, A., Sadvakassova, Z., & Akshalova, B. (2017). Pedagogy of the Twenty-First Century: Innovative Teaching Methods. New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century – Contributions of Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72341

Santos, J., Figueiredo, A. S., & Vieira, M. (2019). Innovative pedagogical practices in higher education: An integrative literature review. Nurse Education Today, 72, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.10.003

Teaching Tolerance (n.d.). Five Standards of Effective Pedagogy. https://www.tolerance.org/professional-development/five-standards-of-effective-pedagogy  

The University of Auckland. (n.d.). Judging criteria. Retrieved February 27, 2020, from https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/students/academic-information/postgraduate-students/3-minute-thesis-competition.html