Add some feedback after running presentations. #14
Conversation
| @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ | |||
| <!-- | |||
| TODO: | |||
| - provide some guidelines on how to proctor final presentations (eg when to give 1/2 points) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Suggestion: We can all vote "yes" or "no" for a point, and if the votes are split in half we can give 1/2 points?
| - [ ] **Solution Appeal and Usability**: Is the proposed solution presented in an engaging and compelling manner, making it easy to envision real users benefiting from and engaging with the application? | ||
| - [ ] **Professional Preparation**: Is there a clear connection between the project work and the skills or experiences that prepare trainees for professional roles, potentially linking to industry categories or needs (e.g., as outlined on https://rfp.dpi.dev)? | ||
| <!-- maybe make professional preparation it's own section --> | ||
| - [ ] **Professional Preparation**: Is there an explicit connection between the project work and the skills or experiences that prepare trainees for professional roles, potentially linking to industry categories or needs (e.g., as outlined on https://rfp.dpi.dev), or connecting to a real business? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we take out "potentially" to minimize uncertainty?
| - [ ] **Solution Appeal and Usability**: Is the proposed solution presented in an engaging and compelling manner, making it easy to envision real users benefiting from and engaging with the application? | ||
| - [ ] **Professional Preparation**: Is there a clear connection between the project work and the skills or experiences that prepare trainees for professional roles, potentially linking to industry categories or needs (e.g., as outlined on https://rfp.dpi.dev)? | ||
| <!-- maybe make professional preparation it's own section --> | ||
| - [ ] **Professional Preparation**: Is there an explicit connection between the project work and the skills or experiences that prepare trainees for professional roles, potentially linking to industry categories or needs (e.g., as outlined on https://rfp.dpi.dev), or connecting to a real business? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This sentence is a bit confusing from a trainee's perspective. When I read it, I am unsure what the first part means. Suggestion: "Does the trainee explicitly connect their project work, skills they've developed, or professional experiences to the industry needs (e.g., as outlined on https://rfp.dpi.dev), or a real business/company partner?"
| - [ ] **Compelling**: Is there a hook? Is the presentation compelling/captivating? | ||
| - [ ] **Transition and Flow**: Are transitions between slides smooth and logical, contributing to a cohesive flow of the presentation without causing distractions? | ||
| - [ ] **Closing**: Does the presentation have a strong closing? <!-- what does this mean? --> | ||
| <!-- what does this mean? do we mean "clear" closing? Or require that the closing ties back to the problem or something discussed earlier (key takeaways, quote, etc.) --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's good to have a closing that ties back to the problem and a call to action as opposed to just a "Thank you"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed I think we should stick to a "strong" closing as apposed to a clear closing. I feel like this would avoid pretty much everyone getting the point for just saying "Thank You". Tying the project back to the problem and how it helps solve it then it makes it strong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could potentially separate this into a point for a "clear" closing vs. a "strong" closing, since that seemed to be a minor sticking point. Some people had much stronger closings compared to those who just had clear closings - should they be getting the same amount of points?
| @@ -37,6 +45,8 @@ This is intended to be filled out by staff members of DPI Tech Apprenticeship pr | |||
| - [ ] **Video**: Does the presentation include a demo video, screencast, or GIF that showcases the actual application, providing a visual understanding of the app's functionality? | |||
| - [ ] **Video Focus**: Does the demo video, screencast, or GIF focus on the unique and significant features of the app, skipping generic features like sign-up/sign-in? | |||
|
|
|||
| <!-- Add third category ("wow" factor) Does the demo make it exceptionally clear how this solution addresses the key problem? --> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like this one! Maybe this could be called Demo Clarity
| @@ -59,6 +69,8 @@ This is intended to be filled out by staff members of DPI Tech Apprenticeship pr | |||
| - [ ] **Eye Contact**: Does the speaker effectively use eye contact? | |||
| - [ ] **Owning the Space**: Does the speaker confidently utilize the space? | |||
| - [ ] **Addressing Questions**: Is the presenter able to effectively respond to questions, showcasing a deep understanding of their project and its context? | |||
|
|
|||
| <!-- Maybe move to it's own section. Looking for a slide or section that discusses a key technical decision, aspect, or hurdle of their project. (eg cloud storage, domain design, external api, etc.) --> | |||
| @@ -67,8 +79,8 @@ This is intended to be filled out by staff members of DPI Tech Apprenticeship pr | |||
|
|
|||
| ## Time | |||
| - [ ] **Adherence to Time Limit** (2pts): Does the speaker effectively manage their time, completing their presentation within the allotted time frame (3-5 minutes), demonstrating respect for the audience's time and attention? | |||
| - 1 pt for < 5:30 or > 2:30 | |||
| - 0 for > 5:30 | |||
| - 1 pt for (5-5:30) or (2:30-3) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nitpik: The points were a bit confusing to me here. Maybe we can put:
Adherence to Time Limit: Does the speaker effectively manage their time, completing their presentation within the allotted time frame (3-5 minutes), demonstrating respect for the audience's time and attention?
[ ] (2pts): 3-5 minutes
[ ] (1pt): 2:30-3:00 minutes or 5:00-5:30 minutes
[ ] (0pts): less than 2:30 or more than 5:30
| @@ -10,12 +15,15 @@ This is intended to be filled out by staff members of DPI Tech Apprenticeship pr | |||
| - [ ] **Introduction**: Does the presentation start with an introduction covering previous work/life experiences and connection to the problem? | |||
| - [ ] **Target User**: Does the presentation clearly identify the target user? | |||
| - [ ] **Target Problem**: Does the presentation clearly identify the problem the project addresses? | |||
| - [ ] **Market Research and Problem Validation**: Is there evidence of market research or validation efforts, such as discussions with potential users, references to previous work/life experiences, and quanitative analysis? | |||
| <!-- (at least 2/3) --> | |||
| - [ ] **Market Research and Problem Validation**: Is there evidence of market research or validation efforts, such as discussions with potential users, references to previous work/life experiences, and quanitative analysis? | |||
| - [ ] **Solution Appeal and Usability**: Is the proposed solution presented in an engaging and compelling manner, making it easy to envision real users benefiting from and engaging with the application? | ||
| - [ ] **Professional Preparation**: Is there a clear connection between the project work and the skills or experiences that prepare trainees for professional roles, potentially linking to industry categories or needs (e.g., as outlined on https://rfp.dpi.dev)? | ||
| <!-- maybe make professional preparation it's own section --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What other criteria would be in the section, if any?
| @@ -59,6 +69,8 @@ This is intended to be filled out by staff members of DPI Tech Apprenticeship pr | |||
| - [ ] **Eye Contact**: Does the speaker effectively use eye contact? | |||
| - [ ] **Owning the Space**: Does the speaker confidently utilize the space? | |||
| - [ ] **Addressing Questions**: Is the presenter able to effectively respond to questions, showcasing a deep understanding of their project and its context? | |||
|
|
|||
| <!-- Maybe move to it's own section. Looking for a slide or section that discusses a key technical decision, aspect, or hurdle of their project. (eg cloud storage, domain design, external api, etc.) --> | |||
| - [ ] **Technical Fluency**: Does the presenter display fluency in discussing the technical aspects of their project, able to articulate the significance of their choices and challenges without resorting to jargon? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we also notate if this has to be stated during the presentation and not during Q&A time. Or are we going to give them credit if they talk about a technicality during questions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Matthew made an interesting point about asking the same questions. I do think if we're giving credit for stuff they share in response to a question then we need to be sure to provide the same opportunity to all with the same questions.
|
Overall, I think the rubric was very clear and thorough. Apart from defining what a "strong" closing looks like, I think the categories were easy to understand and covered everything they learned in durable skills lessons. As for format, I'm curious about what it might look like for us to all assess on our own rubrics and then do a composite scores -- I know the concern here is it taking a lot of time, but it felt like we spent significant time deliberating, so I wonder if just entering the scores in a spreadsheet then averaging them would take the same amount of time. If we did this, for fairness we'd need the same number of scorers in each presentation. One thing that would be helpful for me in the future is having a quick session between the scorers ahead of the presentations to review the rubric all together and align on expectations. I felt a bit blind going into the presentations not having had the opportunity to sync up first, despite having seen the rubric ahead of time. I would also make the presentations in 25m increments instead of 15. One question the trainees asked last week was if they could sit in on each other's presentations. We obviously didn't do that, but something to think about for the future if they are interested in that. |
we did this a few cohorts ago. It takes a lot of time to come up with composite scores and we had a large divergence in how proctors graded it. even though it takes a bit of time to deliberate (and can be difficult at times) i think we end up more aligned on what the rubric means, the final score, and what needs to change for next time. |
I agree, however, we spent quite a bit of time re-writing the rubric together. We had some turnover between the re-write and the presentation (new TAs, you started recently, etc.) |
No description provided.