Structure of your (Research Symposium or VideoLeecture) Critiques

For each of your 5 presentations you were assigned, think about the following
questions, take notes, and write a critique that answers the following
questions.

Your answers should include suitable explanations and detail, and
suggestions for improvement.   

1. Content: what   
	- is the research question or hypothesis? 
	- is the contribution made to answering/proving it?
	- did you learn from this presentation?
		
2. Narrative/storyline: is it
	- clear? well thought through?
	- fit for (General CS) audience & time?
	- did it have the following parts at suitable length: 
		1. Setting the scene: 
			- what kind of problem is addressed?
			- why is that interesting/relevant? 
		2. Focus: 
			- your Research Hypothesis/Question?
			- Methodology/approach/work done: 
			- what have you done/are you doing? 
		3. Context:
			- how does this relate to other people’s work? 
		4. Contributions made: 
			- what is the outcome of the work done? 
			- what are the new insights gained? 
			- how do these answer research hypothesis/question? 
		5. Outlook/next steps/open questions?
		
 2. Presenter: is the presenter 
	- well prepared, with good explanations
	- making good contact with audience 
	- audible
	- well paced (***)
	- clearly enunciating

3. Slides: do they
	- come with a suitable layout? (*) 
	- support story line of presentation without distracting
	- come with a suitable font, colours, size
	- come with suitable, clear graphics (**)

		
(*) ``suitable layout'' includes: no full sentences on slides; logically meaningful structure of (sub)items in bullet lists

(**) includes having graphics where needed/helpful

(***) includes speed, pauses, emphasis