Difference between revisions of "Some Topics to Consider When Critiquing Talks"
From LMU BioDB 2013
Kdahlquist (Talk | contribs) (→Overall: fixed spelling) |
Kdahlquist (Talk | contribs) (→Speaking Style: added clarifiers language and delivery to heading) |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
* Variety | * Variety | ||
| − | == Speaking Style == | + | == Speaking Style (Language and Delivery) == |
* Audience contact and awareness | * Audience contact and awareness | ||
Revision as of 19:05, 18 September 2013
Contents |
Overall
In general, was the talk Excellent? Very Good? Good? Fair? Poor?
Content
- Message stated
- Message clear
- Clear explanations
- Selection of information
- Amount of material
- Slow beginning
- Good science
- Balanced presentation
- Sufficient background and definitions
Organization
- Logical flow
- Clear
- 3-part framework (“Tell them what you’re going to say; say it; tell them what you said”)
- Outline (given, followed)
- Parallel form used as needed
Visuals
- Visible
- Simple
- Emphasis on important information
- Selection
- Number (not too many)
- Variety
Speaking Style (Language and Delivery)
- Audience contact and awareness
- Eye contact
- Attitude (friendly, calm, enthusiastic, …)
- Emphasis on important information
- Knowledgeable
- Answered questions well
- Use of pointer (not circling)
- Voice (loud, soft, monotonous)
- Accent, enunciation
- Pace
- Talking (not memorizing)
- Well-prepared
- Well-practiced
