The Under-Graduate Marine Conference - Essay Example

Under-Graduate Marine Conference, 2006 of Texas Conference Evaluation of Speakers - A Report Prepared By Introduction The Under-Graduate Marine Conference, 2006 held under the auspices of the University of Texas Students Conference, at the University Campus in the month of January 2006. The conference was organized by Ian Thomas, Chief Coordinator, The Under-Graduate Marine Conference Committee, 2006. The students of all branches of Sciences, the Student Leaders of PASL (Peer-Assisted Self Learning), and staff - who are also the programme coordinators, attended the conference. Mr. Ian Thomas welcomed the gathering and delivered the key-note address. Mr. Clint Eastwood, Fellow Researcher, Atlantic Marine Ecology Research Group, presented an interesting speech on "Implications of Global Warming for Marine Ecology" followed by the Asst. Prof. of Department of Oceanography, Texas University, Mr. Tony Adams' presentation of "Cleaning the Oil Spills in the Atlantic". The Conference concluded with thanks from Mr. Tim McKenney. The Aims of the Conference 1) Develop and enhance effective presentation skills and leadership skills. 2) Discover the potential of Marine and Oceanic Sciences through shared learning. 3) Self-reformation based on collated feedback. Random feedback samples recorded at the end of the conference (details available with the Chief Coordinator) show that most of the students considered this event, a positive learning experience. Scheme for Assessment & Review Evaluations of the Research Presentations were analyzed to determine the constituents of an effective and ineffective presentation, and, to review and refine their presentation techniques. A 'Presentation Assessment Form' was prepared (Table A), to evaluate each speaker, and distributed to the audience prior to the commencement of the conference. Evaluation was done on a scale of 1 - 6, 1 being the 'Poorest' and 6 being the 'Excellent', on two aspects of each of the five competencies viz. 1) Content: Planning and Organization. 2) Topic Selection. 3) Quality of Content. 4) Style of Presentation 5) Use of Visual Aids and Tools. The feedback was collated and analyzed to determine the number of positive and negative comments and common themes related to ineffective or poor presentations. A total of 138 assessment forms for each speaker were analyzed, of which 66% remarked positive feedback and 'A' grade for Mr. Eastwood's for the 'Quality of Content' in presentation, as against 29% positive feedback 'A' for Mr. Tony Adams, with 'Style of Presentation', being given the most frequent negative grading 'C'. The assessment scheme was evolved after a careful consideration of some important competencies. Since effective presentation is "to present information in ways that influence peoples' attitudes and behaviour" (Verderber, 1997:6), 'Quality of Content' and 'Style of Presentation', were marked as two prime competencies. The importance of 'Para-linguistics' (Hayton, 2005), the non-verbal communication like eye contact, directing voice to all parts of the room etc, cannot be overemphasized. The audience also participated in the presentation, through "feedback on assessed work" which was "perhaps the most commonly mentioned" (Ramsden, 1992; Biggs, 1999) review tool. Additionally, audience participation has also been envisaged in a 'Question and Answer Session'. It was also meant to develop constructive critiquing techniques, by providing the opportunity to the audience to 'identify and assess the style of speech, evaluate the content, judging the weak and strong points of delivery, and be capable of offering quality feedback to the speaker' (Hooper, 2005). Thus developed, after much deliberation and thought, it was hoped that this scheme will affect "the deep processing results in well-structured learning outcomes" (Biggs, 1979; Marton and Saljo, 1976; Trigwell and Prosser, 1991; Watkins, 1983). An example of a Good Presentation: In this conference, Mr. Clint Eastwood's presentation skills have won accolades for the audience (a sample of evaluated form attached in Table B). His introduction was arresting and immediately caught the attention of the crowd, and gradually led his audience to his line of argument. The voice conveyed aptly his excitement, and his anger when he questioned the "seeming indifference, of the developed nations in the preservation of Marine Ecology" (full text of the speech available with the Coordinator).The body language was in synchronization with his confident and well articulated words, interspersed spontaneous and witty aphorisms. 'Entertaining' all sections of the audience and thereby was able to strike a rapport with them; especially in the slide show wherein he easily surpassed Gigliotti's (1995) suggestions novelty and humour. About 15 forms mentioned in the 'Remarks' column about the longer time taken by this speaker, but hardly, as a drawback. Overall, Mr. Eastwood obtained 91 positive assessments, with more 'A's in his 'Quality of Content'. Simultaneously, many forms reflected his witty and humorous slide show, with almost equal no of 'A's in that section too. Thorough preparation and practice, have taken his presentation beyond the realms of learning, into entertaining and valuable teaching. An example of a Poor Presentation: Mr. Adams, the second speaker in the conference, failed to capitalize on the advantage he had, in the form of an excellent 'Topic Selection' (See Table C). A large number of the audience feedback form (60 of 138) reflected this by awarding 'A' in the relevant section. Mr. Adams seems to have had some amount of communication apprehension, which, though not evident initially, came to the surface during the 'Question and Answer Session'; reflected in the feedback form with a 'Very Poor' score of 1. Preparedness for the event holds the key to success. The feedback forms for Mr. Adams have also shown that his non-assertive way of speaking, and inaudible voice, has led to his losing the interest of the audience, early on. Because of the seeming lack of eye-contact and absence of conviction or, passion for the subject of his speech, the audience seemed unimpressed with his presentation skills; reflected in the emphatic 'C's awarded by many in the 'Style of Presentation' section ( 57 % 'C'). The fact that his 'Quality of Content' scores (between 1 to 3) are also low, with over 80 of 138 forms awarding 'C' in this section too, proves that neither the preparation, nor the delivery of the presenter was good, consequently leading to poor feedback scorings. The significance of the feedback here, was that they held invaluable lessons, in the suggestions put forward by some, in the 'Remarks' column - like practicing in front of the mirror, recording and replaying etc. Taken in the right spirit, they may be stepping stones to success, for Mr. Adams. Conclusion The Under-Graduate Marine Conference, 2006, surely succeeded in fulfilling its aims and goals. The new students at the campus were exposed to a number of novel methods and dimensions, of both, Marine Sciences and Presentation Skills. For me, personally, it has provided me with an opportunity, to hone my skills in keen observation and methods of critiquing presentations, and reporting. I, as did many of my friends in the campus, was able to learn some significant approaches to the preservation of Marine Ecology and what needed to be done more, in this area. I am happy to record, that in a small way, I too have contributed to the success of the conference, by way of the 'Questionnaire/Presentation Assessment Form' preparation. Particular care was taken to study the Quality Assessment Agency's (UK) codes in the 'Characteristics of an effective assessment', during the process of preparation. It has been, no doubt, an enriching experience for all students. The words of one of the student participants, reflect the positive sentiments of a majority of the students who attended the conference: "Feeling energizedenlightened and enthusiastic; completely inspired and slightly hung over very tired, have had a really good time, met a lot of nice people, have learnt a lot. Thank You." Under-Graduate Marine Conference, 2006 Table A (Sample) University of Texas Student Conference Presentation Assessment Form Constructive Criticism in Pursuit of Continuous Progress Presenter's Name: ________________ Title: ______________________________ Instructions: Please tick on the number closest to your evaluation of the presenter's performance. 1-Very Poor, 2-Poor, 3-Average, 4-Good, 5-Very Good, 6-Excellent. Totals to be added respectively, and graded as follows: 'A' for 9 - 12 marks; 'B' for 5 - 8 marks; and 'C' for 1-4 marks. Kindly include your remarks/comments on the plus or minus points, and suggestions for improvement, at the bottom. No C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Marks Grade a) 1. 2. Content: Planning and Organization Indicated the topic clearly; Smooth of transition from one stage to another. Well prepared for the Question and Answer Session. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ________ _______ b) 1. 2. Topic Selection Appropriateness Relevance 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ________ _______ c) 1. 2. Quality of Content Logical arguments, clear articulation, lively presentation. Comprehensive and thorough treatment of the subject. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ________ _______ d) 1. 2. Style of Presentation Smooth & Confident, with appropriate voice inflections, and right volume content. Good eye-contact, addressed everyone, good body-language. Good ability to hold attention. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ________ _______ e) 1. 2. Use of Visual Aids & Tools Good mix of relevant Images and Words with easy fonts. Good Sound Synchronization and Correct spellings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ________ _______ Remarks: Thank You Under-Graduate Marine Conference, 2006 Table B University of Texas Student Conference Presentation Assessment Form Constructive Criticism in Pursuit of Continuous Progress Presenter's Name: Clint Eastwood Title: Implications of Global Warming for Marine Ecology Instructions: Please tick on the number closest to your evaluation of the presenter's performance. 1-Very Poor; 2-Poor; 3-Average; 4-Good; 5-Very Good; 6-Excellent. Totals to be added respectively, and graded as follows: 'A' for 9 - 12 marks; 'B' for 5 - 8 marks; and 'C' for 1-4 marks. Kindly include your remarks/comments on the plus or minus points, and suggestions for improvement, at the bottom. No C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Marks Grade a) 1. 2. Content: Planning and Organization Indicated the topic clearly; Smooth of transition from one stage to another. Well prepared for the Question and Answer Session. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ___11_ ___A___ b) 1. 2. Topic Selection Appropriateness of the selection to the conference Relevance in the in terms of Usefulness 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ___10____ ___A___ c) 1. 2. Quality of Content Logical arguments, clear articulation, lively presentation. Comprehensive and thorough treatment of the subject. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ___10___ ___A____ d) 1. 2. Style of Presentation Smooth & Confident, with appropriate voice inflections, and right volume content. Good eye-contact, addressed everyone, good body-language. Good ability to hold attention. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ___10___ __A____ e) 1. 2. Use of Visual Aids & Tools Good mix of relevant Images and Words with easy fonts. Good Sound Synchronization and Correct spellings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ____10__ ___A____ Remarks: His presentation was very informative and lively; the catchy one-liners provided the right amount of lightness to an otherwise serious subject. The duration taken to complete the presentation was slightly longer, though not dull. The Power Point presentation was good. Figures and statistics were used sparingly and to the point. Answers to questions informative. Excellent, overall. Thank You Under-Graduate Marine Conference, 2006 Table C University of Texas Student Conference Presentation Assessment Form Constructive Criticism in Pursuit of Continuous Progress Presenter's Name: Tony Adams Title: Cleaning the Oil Spills in the Atlantic Instructions: Please tick on the number closest to your evaluation of the presenter's performance. 1-Very Poor, 2-Poor, 3-Average, 4-Good, 5-Very Good, 6-Excellent. Totals to be added respectively, and graded as follows: 'A' for 9 - 12 marks; 'B' for 5 - 8 marks; and 'C' for 1-4 marks. Kindly include your remarks/comments on the plus or minus points, and suggestions for improvement, at the bottom. No C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Marks Grade a) 1. 2. Content: Planning and Organization Indicated the topic clearly; Smooth of transition from one stage to another. Well prepared for the Question and Answer Session. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ___4____ __C____ b) 1. 2. Topic Selection Appropriateness of the selection to the conference Relevance in the in terms of Usefulness 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ___10___ ___A___ c) 1. 2. Quality of Content Logical arguments, clear articulation, lively presentation. Comprehensive and thorough treatment of the subject. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ____5___ ___B___ d) 1. 2. Style of Presentation Smooth & Confident, with appropriate voice inflections, and right volume content. Good eye-contact, addressed everyone, good body-language. Good ability to hold attention. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ____3___ ___C___ e) 1. 2. Use of Visual Aids & Tools Good mix of relevant Images and Words with easy fonts. Good Sound Synchronization and Correct spellings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total ____4___ ___C___ Remarks: A good topic thoroughly spoilt by this speaker. Even the slide show was boring. The crowd lost interest as he was inaudible most of the time. No expression and hence no enthusiasm from audience. Fumbled when questions were posed which shows ill preparation. A bit of homework on the subject matter and practicing loud in front of the mirror could have helped a lot. Thank You Bibliography Biggs J.B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381-394. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Society for the Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Gigliotti E. (1995) Let me entertainerteach you: gaining attention through the use of slide shows. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing. 26:31-34 Hayton, Tom. (2005). Student Presentations. Teaching English. British Council Kuala Lumpur. BBC World Service. Published: 29th September, 2005. London. http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/speak/presenting.shtml Retrieved on Feb 19th 2006. Hooper, David. (2005) Teaching Speech: Encouraging Good Learning Practices. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XI, No. 7, July 2005. Waseda University (Tokyo, Japan). http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Hooper-Speech/ Retrieved on Feb 19th 2006. Kaur, Sarjit. (2005). Suggestions for Teaching Public Speaking and Evaluating Speeches. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XI, No. 7, July 2005. http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kaur-PublicSpeaking.html Retrieved on Feb 19th 2006. Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning - 1: Outcome and process.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. QAA. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education. Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section6/default.asp#8 Retrieved on Feb 19th 2006. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-275. Verderber, R.F. (1997). The Challenge of Effective Speaking (10th ed.). New York: Wadsworth Publishing. Watkins, D.A. (1983). Depth of processing and the quality of learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 12, 49-58. Chapter 1: The research context. Web Sources for guidance in Questionnaire: http://meded.iusm.iu.edu/Programs/Competencies/Assess1/PublicSpeaking.pdf Read More