Final Research Proposal Presentation (Informal)
For your final presentation, each group will present a powerpoint in front of the class. Presentations should fall somewhere between 4-5 minutes. The full rubric for how you’ll be graded is listed below. Use this to guide you in your preparation.
Your presentation/talk should be structured just like the proposal itself. Please include the following 8 elements in your presentation in this order:
1) Title of the paper & author names.
2) Highlights of the literature review. What do we know about this topic, why is it interesting/important, what are the gaps in the literature that we still need to address? (you can have multiple slides for this if needed).
3) Purpose of your study. This should connect to your literature review – how is your study addressing gaps/things we still need to learn?
4) Research Questions or Objectives
5) Participants (or cases/unit of analysis)
6) Research Design/Procedures
7) Implications
8) Limitations
9) References
These are all the standard things that would be included if you were giving a professional research talk. Make sure you go into detail about each of these. You should already have all of this information in your proposals. Please note that items 9 is just standard and you won’t really need to talk much for this slides. Make sure you practice, so you’re prepared. This also helps to ensure you will fall within the expected time.
CRIJ 3382 Presentation Rubric (Total Points Possible = 50)
|
Category |
1-2 |
3-4 |
5-6 |
7-8 |
9-10 |
Total Points: |
|
Organization |
Presentation is unclear. The main points aren’t clearly outlines. Missing important sections. Not presented in a logical order. |
Not all main points or important sections were covered. Presentation order was not logical. |
Presentation was either lacking clarity, missing main points, or should have been presented in a more logical manner. |
Overall, the presentation summarized most of the key points / sections and was mostly presented in a logical order. |
All main points are summarized and all relevant information was included. All the important sections were covered in a logical order. |
|
|
Components |
Presentation did not include most of the necessary components. (1-3) |
Only around half (4) of the necessary components were included. |
Not all components (5-6) were included. |
Most (7) of the components were included. |
All 8 required components were included. |
|
|
Content |
Insufficient content – lacks substance and depth. Not comprehensive – many gaps or concerns over mastery. |
Substance and depth was lacking. Not comprehensive enough – and it is clear that the team hasn’t really mastered the material. |
Sufficient substance and depth but the content could have been more comprehensive. It is unclear if the team has fully mastered the material. |
Mostly demonstrates substance and depth. Overall, the components are comprehensive and the team has mostly mastered the material. |
Overall, the presentation demonstrated substance and depth. The literature review/proposal components are comprehensive and it is clear the team has mastered the material. |
|
|
Quality of Conclusions |
Overall, the team does not demonstrate an understanding of their proposal’s limitations and did not attempt to address the limitations. Did not demonstrate an understanding of scope or implications. |
Lacking a clear understanding of the research proposal’s limitations (or did not try to address any limitations) and lacking a clear understanding of scope and implications. |
Sufficient coverage of potential limitations, solutions, and implications but not comprehensive / in-depth. |
Have mostly assessed and identified the potential limitations and solutions regarding their design. They mostly understand the scope and potential implications of their research. |
The team has clearly assessed their own research design and have identified the limitations and considered solutions. They have also identified the scope and potential implications. |
|
|
Delivery & Participation |
Did not project enthusiasm, seems to lack an understanding of the project / content, does not grasp the scope of the project / lack of effort. |
Either lacked an understanding of the project / content, does not grasp the scope of the project, or demonstrated a lack of effort. |
Sufficient participation but did not seem to have a comprehensive understanding of the project and/or did not project enthusiasm / effort regarding the project . |
Mostly projected enthusiasm, seems to have a relatively comprehensive understanding of the project / content, and grasps the scope of the project / put in effort. |
||
|
Total Score: |
