Some Topics to Consider When Critiquing Talks
From LMU BioDB 2013
				
								
				Revision as of 19:11, 18 September 2013 by Kdahlquist  (Talk | contribs)
Contents | 
Overall
In general, was the talk Excellent? Very Good? Good? Fair? Poor?
Content
- Central message is compelling (precisely stated, appropriately repeated, memorable, and strongly supported.)
 - Good science
 - Clear explanations
 - Appropriate selection of information
 - Appropriate amount of material for the length of the talk
 - Slow beginning with sufficient background and definitions to understand the talk
 
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 (Slides)
- 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