University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire

Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program
IDIS 480 Collegial Critiques

Evaluating your colleagues' lectures will make you more aware of the elements that go into a well-crafted presentation.  After all, you want to enter a profession in which lecturing constitutes a significant and regular aspect of the workweek.  But the exercise is also intended to develop your skill in articulating criticism--positive and negative---to another.  Already as graduate students you will most likely be called upon to evaluate and grade the presentations of undergraduate students, and to teach them how to formally address an audience.  This exercise, which provides you the opportunity to evaluate lectures both within your own discipline as well as outside of it, will assist you towards all those goals.

You must complete an evaluation for each of your colleagues in the class--that is, 9 in all.  The best time to do this is within 24 hours of the time you heard the lecture.  Take notes in class.  Think about how you want to make your criticism as clear as possible.  Provide specific examples of what you mean.  I will critique your critiques. 

Critiques

Complete the Critique Form below.  When describing your ideas in the narrative boxes, use complete sentences.  Your colleagues will receive a composite of your and other class members' remarks.  

Email of McNair Scholar Providing Critique: 
   

McNair Scholar Presenting: 

Presentation Title:

Date of Presentation:

Identify the presentation's hypothesis, central question(s), or issue(s).  What empirical evidence best supported the hypothesis, central question(s), or issue(s)?  What evidence was less convincing, downright shaky or missing? 

 

What are the major divisions of the presentation?  Can you suggest other ways to structure the talk?

What "visuals" did you find effective in the presentation?  Were any superfluous, annoying,  or confusing?  What kinds of visuals would have made the presentation more effective?  If PowerPoint or another application or device was employed, how did the technology enhance or detract from the presentation?  How so?


What techniques did the presenter use to establish rapport with the audience?  What technique(s) did the speaker use to maintain rapport with the audience?  Name as many as you can and analyze why these were effective.

Was there any "imbalance" between the quality of the presentation's content and the quality of the lecturer's delivery?  (For example, an exciting hypothesis rendered boring by a lifeless speaker, or an empty issue held up merely by technology dazzle.)  If yes, what flaws created the imbalance?  If no, how did the speaker's delivery reinforce the presentation's content?

What was surprising to you about this presentation?  What appears to you to be the next stage or next topic of inquiry for this speaker?  What hypothesis, question(s), or issue(s) would you like this researcher to tackle next?

Your colleagues thank you for your evaluation.

 

The Kuechenmeister Commends Your Completion of This Report


Back to McNair Home Page