|
36th Annual North American Symposium on Bat Research
New Evaluation form for posters below
Judging Form for Platform Presentations NASBR
Student Name: Title:Please rate the paper from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). These scores are intended to facilitate a discussion of each paper at the judges meeting and to permit the panel chair to summarize feedback for the presenter and NOT intended to be the sole criteria for evaluation and determination of awards.
I. Organization and Presentation (1 = poor; 5 = excellent)
1. Did the Introduction provide a theoretical framework, rationale, and cite relevant studies? Comments: [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
2. Were the Methods explained adequately? [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
3. Were the Results succinct and include informative statistics, figures and tables? [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
4. Did the Discussion present results in the context of the Introduction? [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
5. Was the projected text readable and the vocal presentation clear? [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
6. Were graphs/illustrations easily interpreted and appropriate? [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
7. Did the demeanor reflect a professional attitude? [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Part 2. Research Merit. CONTENT (1 = Poor; 5 = Excellent) 1. Were adequate data collected to support or reject the hypothesis/rationale? [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
2. Does the research represent a significant contribution to new knowledge? [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (may be continued on back of sheet)NASBR 2006 Guidelines for Poster Judging
Thank you for volunteering to serve our students.
1. For each student in the competition, please provide your evaluations on a separate form provided to you with the name of the student and title filled in by you. 2. Note both positive aspects and areas in which the poster could be improved. 3. Use the descriptions under the headings as a guide to what you should evaluate in each section. 4. Students receive a summary of comments but not the sheets you write, so be as constructive in a professional manner and detailed in your written comments as time allows. 5. Panel chairs will provide a written summary of selected comments by email to each student following the meetings to assist the students in recognizing strengths and weakness in presentation.
Academic Merit Introduction—provides theoretical framework, rationale, and references to other relevant studies. Methods—do they contain clear and adequate information to replicate the study? Results—clearly presented with sufficient tables and figures, and summarized appropriately; sample sizes and statistical analyses were appropriate. Conclusions—followed from results. Results supported conclusions. Discussion presented results in the context provided by the Introduction. Overall—Relevance to the scientific field, organization of the work, effective flow of writing and figures.
Format Size, configuration, structure, readability/balance of text and figures, background colors, font size and color, conspicuous headings
Student Interaction Familiarity with the topic, ability to effectively communicate the message, expertise and availability to discuss the issue.
Other Observations and Comments
The conference of judges will be held at __________PM in the following location____________________________.
Poster number ___ Author________________________ Judge#____
Poster Academic Merit: Introduction—
Methods—
Results—
Conclusions—
Overall Presentation—
Poster Format: Size, configuration, structure, readability/balance of text and figures, background colors, font size and color, conspicuous headings
Student Interaction: Familiarity with the topic, ability to effectively communicate the message, expertise and availability to discuss the issue.
Other Observations/Comments (continue on back of this sheet as necessary):
|
|
36th NASBR |