| Presentation Guidelines:
Introduction (10
pts) - Does the introduction “set the stage”
properly by giving pertinent background information
and explaining the problem and need? Are objectives
clearly stated and explained?
Methods (10 pts)
- Do the methods fit the problem? Are sampling
protocols, field/lab techniques clearly explained?
Organization (10
pts) - Does the presentation flow? Is the
sequence logical and easy to follow?
Originality (15
pts) - Is this a new and fresh approach to a
problem? Or is this the same old, same old, a
question answered by yet another author in another
state?
Technical Merit
(20 pts) - Is the science well done? Are the
statistical treatments appropriate and are
significant differences demonstrated and explained?
Are the results presented clearly and do the
conclusions follow smoothly from the results? Were
the objectives met? Are the management implications
of their results explained and are recommendations
made that will further fishery science in the
Southeast?
Delivery (15
pts) - Does the presenter simply read their
notes (or worse, the manuscript)? How is the vocal
delivery? Do they use the microphone appropriately?
Volume? Pace? Many long, awkward pauses? Too much
“Uh”, “um”, “and, uh”, etc? Does the presenter speak
to the audience, not the screen? Do they make eye
contact with the audience?
Visual Aids (15
pts) - If they have to say “I know you folks in
the back can’t see this, but...” then that slide
should have never been shown. Other “no-no’s”
include slides of tables of figures right out of the
manuscript. Tables & figures should be simple, easy
to read, clear and well labeled - readable from
anywhere in the audience. Do the graphics stand
alone or does the presenter have to “explain”
everything?
Timing (5 pts)
- No excuses for running over! Does the presenter
utilize the full 15 minutes for presentation. Do
they invite questions at the end of their
presentation and have the 5 minutes remaining to
answer them? They should repeat the question if the
moderator does not. Are questions answered well?
Review papers or
case histories may not follow a strict
“scientific method.”
However, this should not detract from the
presentation value. Consider the following:
- Does the title
clearly reflect the content of the presentation?
- Does the
introduction provide a clear description of the
scope of the problem?
- Are the results
clearly presented? Are tables & figures complete
and descriptive?
- “Lessons
learned” in the discussion should be reflected in
the conclusions
- Is the case
history relevant to fisheries management?
|
