SSC Student Prize for Presentation
The overall idea of the ELLS Student Prize for Presentation is to recognise outstanding students and to support their further development while enhancing networking within ELLS.
The Student Prize for Presentation is awarded to outstanding oral presenters and poster presenters during the ELLS Scientific Student Conference.
The Student Prize for Presentation committee is asked to select outstanding oral presenters, based on their performance in the conference relative to the level of their study (bachelor, master or PhD). The selection may be based on the content of their work as well as on soft skills such as structure of presentation.
As regards the selection of the best poster, the committee is asked to nominate a poster based on the structure of the poster and the poster presentation. The final selection of the best poster will be a combination of the nomination by the committee as well as a general vote among the conference participants (both students and staff).
At the SSC 2023 in Hohenheim the following prizes will be awarded:
- 6 student prizes for the best oral presenters
- 8 student prizes for best poster presenters
Presentations, both oral and poster, at the ELLS Scientific Student Conference (SSC) undergo a structured evaluation process:
Assessment Process:
- Criteria-Based Evaluation: Each presentation is evaluated based on predefined criteria, which encompass aspects such as addressing the audience, scientific content and quality, and the overall presentation layout and design.
- Scoring: Each criterion has a maximum of 10 points. Presentations are scored based on the extent to which they meet each criterion. A detailed scoring guide provides clarity on the allocation of points.
Evaluation Criteria
| Section | Max. Points | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Adressing the audience | ||
| Introduction | 10 | Is the project's introduction clear and easily understandable, even for those not specialized tn the field? |
| Non-verbal Communication | 10 | Is the candidate understandable, do they seem focused, and do they seek direct eye contact? |
| Scientific Content and Quality | ||
| Problem Statement | 10 | Is the background or problem of the project sufficiently and clearly explained? |
| Hypotheses/Research Questions | 10 | Are the hypotheses or research questions presented ina scientifically accurate manner? |
| Materials/Methods | 10 | Have the materials and methods been chosen to effectively address the research questions, ensuring adequate repetitions, controls, and suitable techniques? |
| Results | 10 | Do the results appear to have been analysed correctly and are the results well presented in a scientific manner? |
| Conclusion/Discussion | 10 | Do the conclusions align with the results presented and do they adequately address the initial research question? |
| Presentation | ||
| Font Size | 10 | Are the figures, tables, and illustrations legible for all audience members, including those seated at the back of the auditorium? |
| Layout | 10 | Is the presentation's layout, including colour choices, illustrations, tables, figures, and information density, designed for a clarity and easy comprehension? |
| Timing and Q&A Round | 10 | Does the candidate adhere to the allotted presentation time and address audience questions directly and succinctly without strying off-topic? |
Scoring Guide
| Points | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The criteria are... | Outstanding | Excellent | Very Good | Good | Above Average | Average | Below Average | Needs Improvement | Poor | Very Poor |
| All met flawlessly, exceeding expectations. | Met excellently, with only the slightest nuances missing. | Met very well, with only minor areas for improvement. | Met well, with minor areas for improvement. | Met well, with a few areas for improvement. | Halfway met, with several areas for improvement. | Somewhat met, but the presenation has several flaws. | Barely met or addressed. | Inadequately met, the presentation has major flaws. | Not met, the presentation is deeply flawed. |
