Highest Quality Rating (3 points)
Written Example: A clear flow for the overall presentation. Each section builds on the prior one. There are no parts that seem disconnected/unrelated.
Information is presented in a coherent manner, such that it is easy for the viewer to follow the logic or rationale of the various components of the presentation. This may or may not be supported by presenters’ use of transitional phrases like, “In order to assess the extent/scope of identified problem of a lack of healthy and fresh food, we chose to begin our investigation by doing x, y, and z, which is what my colleague Jane will speak to next in her discussion of our research methods…”
Mid-Quality Rating (2 points)
Written Example: In general there is a narrative flow, but 1 or 2 parts of the presentation seem unrelated.
Information is presented in a mostly coherent manner, such that it is mostly easy for the viewer to follow the logic or rationale of the various components of the presentation. However, there are a few times in the presentation when the viewer is not exactly sure why the presenter has introduced that particular example, component, issue, or evidence.
Lowest Quality Rating (1 point)
Written Example: The relationship between sections of the presentation is weak or appears disconnected.
Information is presented in a way that makes it confusing for the viewer to follow. The viewer is not able to readily discern the central logic of the presentation because the various sections do not flow well. This may feel as if the students had each prepared individually for the presentation, without syncing their various parts, and as a result the presentation feels disjointed.
Video Example: The presentation unfolded and flowed in a coherent manner-- it started with an introduction of the topic, a broad overview of the situation, discussed their action research, and concluded with a proposed solution to integrate their pilot food options into the school lunch.
Video Example: The overview of the issue is strong and provides a great context for the presentation. However, the “Interview Details” section provided after the overview seemed out of place. The presenter did not articulate a connection between the interview details and the overview.
Video Example: The flow of the presentation abruptly shifts when the presenters move from talking about racism to the art budget. Additionally, the presentation moved from art to addressing stereotypes without making the connection between stereotypes and racism or why art was the correct platform to address their topic. Time: 15:14 - 23:40