BHSU Research Symposium

FEEDBACK CRITERIA

Feedback Criteria for the
BHSU Research Symposium

(revised 2014)
FEEDBACK - RESEARCH

IDENTIFICATION AND  STATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTION  (25%)

Is the topic an appropriate subject for research within its discipline?

1

2

3

4

5

Is the research question or hypothesis stated clearly? Is the topic of interest clearly identified and focused on a specific question, i.e., sufficiently narrow?

1

2

3

4

5

Does the presenter demonstrate a thorough understanding of the existing knowledge and research on the topic? Does the presenter ground the question or thesis in the theory or literature in the field?

1

2

3

4

5

Is the significance of this research clear? Does it relate and contribute to the overall discipline?

1

2

3

4

5

Is the project the result of careful planning? Are the important phases of the project presented in an orderly fashion?

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

 

 

 

RESEARCH DESIGN, METHODOLOGY, RESULTS, AND FINDINGS (35%)

 

Is the method of investigation appropriate to the problem?

1

2

3

4

5

Is the objective of the research question or problem researched thoroughly?

1

2

3

4

5

Has sufficient data been collected for this presentation? Is the presentation f the information accurate and sufficiently documented?

1

2

3

4

5

Has the project been carried out with sufficient rigor, i.e. controls, assumptions being established and results being verified?

1

2

3

4

5

Does the student show evidence of laboratory, computational, observation, and design skills?

1

2

3

4

5

Is the designed purpose carried out to completion within the scope of the original intent?

1

2

3

4

5

Is the interpretation of the results clearly stated and supported by the data? Do results and/or findings directly address the research hypothesis or question?

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION (15%)

Are the conclusions logically stated and show clear relevance to the research problem or question? Is the discussion of the research linked to and supported by the data collection?

1

2

3

4

5

Are the theoretical and practical implications of the research recognized and/or discussed? Does presenter give evidence of what was learned?

1

2

3

4

5

Were new questions raised by this research and did the conclusions provide new insight into the research topic?

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

SKILL IN COMMUNICATING AND PRESENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE (25%)

Did the presentation give a clear description and concise analysis of the research project? Does the presentation effectively describe and/or display a complete story?

1

2

3

4

5

Was the presentation well planned and organized? Did the presenter articulate her/his ideas?

1

2

3

4

5

Were the visual aids, i.e. graphics, tables, etc. effectively used and aesthetically pleasing? Did the visual aids enhance the communication of the research material?

1

2

3

4

5

Does the presenter communicate effectively in the oral responses to questions? Do the oral responses of the presenter demonstrate a thorough understanding of the research and conclusions?

1

2

3

4

5

Rate your overall impression of the student's research achievement.

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

1: Unsatisfactory   :  2: Weak   :  3: Satisfactory   :  4: Strong   :  5: Excellent

Any Additional Comments:






Feedback Criteria for the
BHSU Research Symposium

(revised 2/22/16)
AREA OF CREATIVE SCHOLARSHIP AND ACTIVITY

IDENTIFICATION AND STATEMENT OF CREATIVE ACTIVITY 

The topic is an appropriate subject for research and creative scholarship within its discipline.

1

2

3

4

5

The focus is clearly identified and focuses on a specific question, i.e., sufficiently narrow.

1

2

3

4

5

The presenter grounded the research topic in the theories, literature, and/or works of art in the field. 

1

2

3

4

5

The thesis or interpretive claim was clearly stated and easily recognizable.

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

 

 

 

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

 

Where applicable, the method of investigative activity is appropriate to the selected topic.

1

2

3

4

5

The research project was conducted with sufficient rigor - A theme, topic, or concept has been explored through various angles, interpretations, etc.

1

2

3

4

5

The student shows evidence of observational, literacy, and/or aesthetic design skills.

1

2

3

4

5

The process of the creative scholarship has been clearly assessed by the presenter and shows relevance to the presenter's original concept, topic, and thesis.

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

 

DISCUSSION AND OUTCOMES 

The product of creative scholarship has been clearly assessed by the presenter and shows relevance to the presenter's original concept, topic, and thesis.

1

2

3

4

5

The theoretical, literary, and/or practical implications of the work is recognized and discussed. The presenter exhibits self-reflection and critical theory in discussing their work.

1

2

3

4

5

The presenter provided credible evidence of the knowledge learned from the process and outcomes.

1

2

3

4

5

The presenter discussed new insights into his/her creative scholarship or outcome.

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

SKILL IN COMMUNICATING AND PRESENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE 

The presenter effectively articulated his/her ideas.

1

2

3

4

5

The presenter was well planned and organized.

1

2

3

4

5

The visual aids (graphics, process photos, drawings, etc.) were effectively used and aesthetically pleasing.
If no visual aids were used (works in the visual arts must provide visuals), the presenter’s style of delivery successfully enhanced the overall communication of the research material.

1

2

3

4

5

The presenter communicated effectively to the audience and demonstrated a thorough
understanding of their creative process in their oral responses to audience questions.

1

2

3

4

5

Comments:

1: Unsatisfactory   :  2: Weak   :  3: Satisfactory   :  4: Strong   :  5: Excellent

Any Additional Comments: