Background
This webpage provides some general feedback regarding your talks. What is included are the lecturers’ general impressions of your talk across four categories (Presentation, Audio-visuals, Content and Overall). As you will see in the summary graphs below, these impressions do vary — as they would for any audience. But this is to provide a general guideline for what you need to work on in future. There are also some (limited) comments about what the lecturers enjoyed, and what requires work. Please remember that we only had a few moments to jot down these points, so extensive comments were simply not possible. (Please excuse any misspelling or gramatical errors)
Rubric
The rubric below was used to assess the four categories: 
The Perusall Score was calculated independently and contributed 10% to the final score.
Student Feedback
s215033760
| Nice visuals. Well spoken. |
| Well spoken, good pace, good use of visuals to guide the audience through your talk. |
| Neat visuals. |
| Good slides |
| Nothing poppd out at me but also nothing bothered me |
| Confusing chl a production and photosynthesis in the discussion. |
| Chloropyll production does not necessarily mean photosynthesis. The process of photosynthesis funadmentally requires light. So, need to make sure that you discuss the physiology correctly. |
| A little monotonous. Photosynthesises at night? Hmmm..is generating Chl and photosynthesis the same thing? |
| Nocturnal photosynthesis? Perhaps a misinterpretation here between chlorophyll production and photosynthesis |
S215252527
| Good choice of colours for the presentation. Nice background - does not distract from the talk. |
| Well spoken and nice colour scheme. |
| Layout of slides but - |
| Not a lot. |
| Presentation needs more flow. Student spoke a bit fast. |
| Are these differences in soil temperature biologically relevant? This was not answered. Make sure there are no spelling mistakes. Do not extrapolate your findings beyond the data (e.g. climate change is not something studied or evident in your eight day dataset). |
| more images - graphs, photographs to drive point home would have been nice |
| Visuals, enthusiasm |
| Layout of the slides could have been improved |
S215352033
| Nice slides - interesting visuals. |
| Nice slides, well spoken. Interesting walk-away point. |
| Good use of a case study however - |
| Nice slides. |
| Simplicity |
| Pace slightly slow. |
| Needed more of a narrative and further depth. |
| I’d like to have seen more content from the project write up incorporated in the presentation |
| It’s not your family. I did not see much data? |
| some more of own data - case study based |
S216373549
| Good pace. |
| A fantastic experiment, and an interesting talk. But let down by the results… |
| Good slides, minimal text, nice photos |
| To much animation on the slides. Less text. |
| Make sure the spelling is correct. Pie charts are rarely an adequate means to show results. In this case, it was a terrible decision. Percentage of what? |
| Lack of enthusiasm - I’m sure I heard a yawn. Statistics? Does not show the data for all the statements made. |
| Perhaps a bit simplistic for a bot3 project. |
| LAb analysis was lacking due to circumstances |
S216451671
| Nice visuals. Good pace - well spoken. |
| Spoke very clearly. Good timing. Interestng explanation of limited results. |
| Nice pictures, slides |
| Good visuals, clear presentation |
| Careful of species names. |
| What do negative abundance values mean for SD bars? Is this then the appropiate way to represent the data? The analyses were too limited. More could have been done or presented. |
| Some pretty wild assumptions, why focus on only one species? |
| The puffins at the end |
S216859506
| Nice enthusiasm. |
| An interesting study, but I struggled to follow. What was the narrative/golden thread? |
| Interesting study and nice data. |
| Very clearly presented, well done |
| Flow of the talk needs a bit of work. |
| Too much data in one go. Show where you are talking. Got lost quickly as to what was being discussed and how that related to the data being shown. Spoke way too quickly. Need to focus on slowing down and giving us the key message rather than all the data. |
| Methodology and explanation of how the data was generated missing |
| Speak more slowly and clearly. Too much data on one slide. Lost me a bit in the discussion. |
| When describing a complex or graphically busy graph, it would be great to have use the pointer more to illustrate the points, instead of just saying “as you can see in the graph”. |
| A bit thin on interpretation and explanations. Graphs too busy |
S217100953
| Nice slides. |
| Well done. Very interesting project. |
| Nice slide design & graphics |
| Nice diagrams, well presented, enthusiastic. |
| Made the most of a tricky situation, having to set this up at home. Good ingenuity and a nicely made system. Pretty solid interpretation of the results. |
| great eg of experimental design. Could easily understand what was done. |
| Pace was a little slow in places. |
| Label y axes. Those bars look like standard deviation rather than standard error. The results were rushed… slow down and break down the findings. |
| Is the control really a control. Is simply a comparative study - not hypothesis testing. |
| Using soil as a control here is really not a control. Using pure water would have been a control. |
| excellent experiment to repeat under more controlled conditions |
s217117139
| Nice visuals. |
| Very interesting study. Nice link to physiology. |
| Good experimental design, graphs and explanations of the results and link to the theory |
| Figures, slides, images |
| Enthusiasm |
| Explanation were good. Understood the processes |
| Would the lack of roots in the spekboom not be an issue? |
| Lots of talking per slide with lots of information. Need to lead the audience through the narrative a bit more <U+200B>— i.e. guiding where we should be focusing. |
| Tone |
| Interpretation of spekboom physiology is very flawed, as were the interpretation of results. I cannot see any practical application to this study. |
| Rooting |
S217118690
| Speaker was clear and spoke at a good pace. |
| Interesting presentation. I understand that COVID really affected your study, but you should still have tried to develop a narrative (a story) to hook the audience. Your presentaton was very much like a report, which <U+200B>(although interesting) was difficult to engage with. |
| good clear intro to the concepts/terminology and aims of the project |
| Interesting work |
| images were good |
| The storyline needs better flow and clarity. Less text on the slides. |
| Images to show natural traps. How does pollen get around etc… |
| Understanding of and application to, the specifics of the samples themselves is limited |
| Story, visuals |
| A bit too much text, not enough pictures |
s217174647
| Good slides. |
| An interesting study. |
| Enthusiastic. |
| Exceptionally nicely done presentation |
| Would have been nice to have included images of what the different microplastics look like under the microscope |
| Work on language. Methodology, stats? |
| images of Microplastics would have been good |
s217350763
| Nice visuals. Good pace. |
| An interesting study. |
| intro, context and terminology explained well, summary results presented well |
| Interesting work. |
| Enthusiasm and simplicity, nice presentation |
| good use of images. Nice talk |
| Please explain how morphological characteristics were measured (e.g. 64% convex <U+200B>— what does this mean?) |
| Would have been useful to mention the methodology [image analysis of the reference material and extracting the key morphological features] |
| methodology had me a bit lost because I know nothing about the topic |
s217436358
| Nice slides. Interesting |
| An interesting study. |
| Good linkages between the local context of the study and international trends, good dataset |
| Nice results, well explained. |
| Really good visuals and clear explanation |
| data set and analysis good |
| Pace slightly fast at the beginning. |
| More guidance through the results. Too many figures per slide. Discuss y axes. |
| Spoke too fast |
S218173261
| Excellent presentation. Very engaging - beautiful slides. |
| This presentatoin is conference ready. My daughter says she’s learnt so much from your talk. |
| Excellent engaging talk, manuscript-ready figures |
| You could take this to a conference right now! |
| Really good visuals and clear explanation, very impressive and ingenuitive design. |
| very good talk. well structured with engaging AV. Analysis very interesting |
| Nothing. |
| It’s brillliant!. Well done. |
| Nothing in my opinion. |
S219003327
| Nice slides. |
| An interesting study. Good pace, but need to vary pitch a bit more (pitch was a tad monotonous). |
| slide design, good explanation of the aims, hypotheses, results graphs and link to the broader context of the study |
| Well designed slides and graphics. |
| Good depiction of results |
| very well constructed talk. it flowed nicely |
| Needs a bit more energy. |
| Were there statistical differences amongst the treatments (e.g. for growth rate)? There was a lot of discussion around differences that did not look significantly different. |
| Where’s the fun and enthusiasm? |
s219029288
| Good presentation. |
| An interesting study. Well presented. |
| Not too much text |
| Nice and simple, clear presentation |
| Too much text on some slides. |
| Lots of talking per slide with many points on a slide. Introduce the points bit by bit, with the talking points.Make it clear to the view what the bars and lines represent (matching y label colour, for example). |
| No enthusiasm. |
| The elephants definitely don’t need MORE watering holes at addo. They need to be culled. |
| found it difficult to engage witht he talk |
s219090378
| Nice slides. Good explaination. |
| Great use of image. Fantastic break down and explanation of results |
| Great experimental design, content and slide design. Broader relevance of study nicely brought in at the end |
| Good study, Interesting findings. |
| Really good visuals and clear explanation |
| experiment well expalined and easy to understsnd |
| Audio could be clearer. |
| Remember that data support or does not support a hypothesis. It very rarely “rejects” a hypothesis. |
| There were some distrating sound issues. |
| A bit of beast of a dataset for a third year |
s219121451
| Nice slides - good pace. |
| Avery interesting study, and well presented. Great use of powerpoint <U+200B>— really guided the audience through your results. |
| slide design & graphics |
| Very interesting study. |
| Outstanding presentation, really simply presented and interesting results |
| Need to work on voice tone and activity of. Became a little monotonous at times. Try put your results into a helicopter view <U+200B>— what’s next? Should we role this out? What other tests are needed…? |
| Figure text very small. |
| some more info methodology |
s219136092
| Good pace. |
| Clearly spoke, good order. Good clean lines on the audiovisuals. |
| Good explanation to the context of the study |
| Interesting work, enthusiam |
| Enthusiasm |
| Less text on the slides. The flow of the presentation could be improved. |
| Really need to have the same limits on the y-axis, else visually discombobulating. Pictures and images of the study site etc. could have been used to engage the audience. |
| I’d prefer the methods before the results to better understand what they represent |
| Texty slides |
| Too much text in the slides |
| a bit more background |
s219161968
| Very nice presentation - clear visuals to assit the speaker. |
| As a terrestrial ecologist, I have no idea about this system You broke it down in a way that even I could engage with the system <U+200B>— you took great pains to relate patterns back to biology… but… |
| audio-visuals |
| Slides, images |
| Minimal text |
| Some more connection to other studies would have been nice to hear. |
| Need to understand the r2 value a little better as the narrative was built up around very very low r2 values <U+200B>— which suggests that the linear regression is unreliable. |
| Interpretation of stats |
| Story |
| stats |
S219964270
| Nice visuals. Minimal text in the presentation. |
| Great presentation. Really showed the data well. Great use of visuals |
| Very nice slide design and use of images and graphs, clear and engaging talk |
| Figures, data, interesting work |
| clearly explained and told a story |
| The flow of the speech could be improved. |
| If your data doesn’t fit a hypothesis, then explain why. But don’t try shoe-horn a hypothesis onto your data <U+200B>— it felt like you did that a bit for the IDH as your control should have had very low diversity… |
| Tone, enthusiasm |
S219966605
| Nice clear slides. Engaging talk. |
| Very interesting presentation. Well done. |
| Engaging talk, clear slides, nicely explained context and background |
| Well presented, nice slides |
| Good interpretation of some of the results, but some serious errors have crept in during the study |
| excellent use of AV. TAlk flowed nicely |
| Nothing major. |
| Give the allometic equation for those who are interested. Explaining this would have been useful. |
| Not great statistical support. Would be nice to see the actual C values predicted. |