LEADING A CLASS DISCUSSION-Rubric Group Pts



LGCS 121: Psycholinguistics

Paper presentation requirements

I have selected a number of short, original research papers for class presentations throughout the term. These papers expand on topics discussed in class and are meant to give you practice at interpreting actual research by evaluating it for its argumentation and methodology.

Each presentation should start with an 8-10 minute presentation using PowerPoint, Prezi, good-old fashioned tree-pulp handouts, sock puppets, or whatever, followed by 5-10 minutes of discussion, and have the following components:

1. Background: Introduce any assumptions or models that were assumed, connecting them to class content if applicable

2. Theoretical hypothesis: A brief statement of the hypothesis that the study tests and any alternatives considered by the authors

3. Method: An illustration of the method used

4. Results: A short summary of the results of the study

5. Interpretation: How the results support or fail to support the theoretical hypothesis

6. Evaluation: Your own critical (but not necessary negative) evaluation of the study, in particular whether there are any confounds in the method, any faulty or unclear assumptions, alternative explanations of the results, mistaken reasoning, etc.

7. Discussion: Open up the discussion to the class, providing explicit questions to get people talking.

A evaluation rubric is provided on the following page, with three levels of competency Excellent, Competent, and Needs Work, along three dimensions of the presentation Content, Delivery, and Discussion. Please check with me if aspect of the rubric or requirements is unclear.

LGCS 121: Psycholinguistics

Presentation rubric

| |Content |Delivery |Discussion |

|Excellent |☐ Shows rich understanding of paper |☐ Appropriate use of visual aides |☐ Inspires interest in topic |

| |☐ Explains and connects concepts |☐ Eye contact |☐ Generates discussion |

| |well |☐ Engaging, keeping audience in mind |☐ Answers questions with |

| |☐ Thorough and organized with |☐ Energy and enthusiam |understanding |

| |synthesis rather than summary |☐ Efficient use of time |☐ Listens carefully to questions |

| |☐ Addressed all requirements in |☐ Easy to understand |☐ Friendly and open |

| |instructions |☐ Effective use of examples or anecdotes | |

| |☐ Clearly states hypotheses and | | |

| |predictions | | |

| |☐ Evaluation of study | | |

|Competent |☐ Basic or superficial understanding|☐ Good use of visual aides, but reads off|☐ Does not inspire much interest |

| |of paper |slides too often |☐ Engages in discussion but cannot |

| |☐ Presents summary of points, |☐ Less than full consideration of |answer questions |

| |without synthesis of concepts |audience |☐ Prepared questions are not |

| |☐ Evaluation is lacking |☐ Moderate engagement |engaging |

| |☐ Recites material |☐ Gets lost in presentation too often | |

| |☐ Missing a requirement |☐ Use of time is good, but not entirely | |

| |☐ Hypothesis or prediction is not |efficient | |

| |clearly stated | | |

| | | | |

|Needs work |☐ Does not understand paper |☐ No visual aides prepared |☐ Does not lead discussion |

| |☐ Cannot summarize main points |☐ Relies entirely on visual aides or |☐ Has not prepared discussion |

| |☐ No evaluation |reads large portions |questions |

| |☐ Missing many or all requirements |☐ Lacks clarity |☐ Displays hostility or frustration|

| | |☐ Seems bored or uninterested |during discussion |

| | |☐ Otherwise unprepared | |

| | | | |

Notes for presenter:

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download