Public Health

Research Project

EPID4011
Master of Public Health
MPH (Global Health)
MPH (Health Research)

Session 9. Workshop on How to present a poster

 Session outline

• Revisit of learning competencies aligned with assessment

• Assessment requirements for poster + presentation

• Advice and tips for effective poster design Some

embedded
• Advice and tips for effective poster presenting practice

• Practical activity: Critiquing and marking posters and presentations

2
 Revisiting some research project learning competencies

Professional and practical skills

 Communicate effectively with peers, academics and professionals in the field of the research project

 Effectively communicate research for an international academic audience

 Summarise research for effective communication to the public and key stakeholders

 Conduct oneself in a manner appropriate to the professional role within a multidisciplinary environment

3
 Poster and presentation assessment

Assessment type Weighting of Format/word limits Completion deadlines and

60 credits format

Element B -Poster 20% Poster 18th September 2023

and presentation
(landscape-horizontal- format MS Power point (.ppt or .pptx) or
clearly legible on a 13-inch laptop .pdf file
screen)
Electronically uploaded to
and Moodle
Oral poster presentations will
take place weeks commencing
15-minute oral presentation with Monday 18th and 25th September
questions 2023 (all presentations
completed by Friday 29th
September 2023)

4
 Marking criteria for poster and presentation
Poster design and content
Degree class marked for each of:
Overall design
Attention to detail
Story-telling/flow
Scientific content
Figures and tables
2
Oral poster presentation and
equally weighed answering examiners’ questions
components
Degree class marked for each of:
10% each
Oral poster defence
Answering examiner questions
5
 Marking criteria for poster
Degree class Distinction
“Outstanding” or
“Excellent”
100-70
Poster design and content
Overall design Very clear presentation of
data and original design
elements.
Attention to detail Figure numbering and
referencing correct,
citations and figures
professional appearance.
Story-telling/flow
One clear well-defined
story.
Scientific content Data driven message for
poster, data extremely
clear and conclusion well-
supported.
Figures and tables Used to tell story not just to
present data; excellent
clarity.
Merit
“Very Good”
69-60
Clear presentation of data Some lack of clarity in design Confusing inconsistent
and arrangement of sections. and presentation of data.
Some major typographical
issues, but references
present and figures referred
to in text.
Story not wholly clear, but
good flow.
Data support most of story
and are presented clearly.
Clear presentation of key
data.
Pass Fail
“Satisfactory” “Poor”
59-50 49-0
design.
Key aspects missing, e.g.,
scale bar on images, number
Very poor quality.
of data points or repeats not
given, etc.
Story unclear, poor flow and Very confused and
design. confusing.
Data not always relevant to
Lack of focus and very poor
story, key data not I place or
presentation of data.
poorly presented.
Unclear presentation of data, Very confused and
and/or key data lacking. confusing.
6
 Marking criteria for poster presentation

Degree class Distinction Merit Pass Fail

“Outstanding” or “Very Good” “Satisfactory” “Poor”

“Excellent”
69-60 59-50 49-0
100-70

Oral poster presentation and answering examiners’ questions

Oral poster defence Extremely clear and well Clear and well-structured Covers many of the key A poor presentation – lacks
structured presentation. presentation. Gives an points but lacks clarity in clarity and structure is
accurate and complete places and the structure lacking. Poor delivery.
Gives a highly accurate
overview of the project. could be improved. Some
and complete overview of Good delivery. key aspects of the project
the project. Enthusiastic are not presented. Delivery
and confident delivery. could be improved.
Answering examiner Demonstrates excellent Demonstrates very good Some weaknesses in Understanding of subject
questions understanding of subject understanding of subject understanding of subject area, methods and findings
area, methods and area, methods and findings. area, methods and findings. extremely weak.
findings.

7
 Content of ‘Conference-style’ Poster

• Title
• Student name
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Conclusions
• Summary of 2-3 key points from the research
– what are the key things you want your audience to know?
• Approximately 3-5 key references
• Tables/figures/boxes to present data and other relevant information
No word limit - clearly legible on a 13-inch laptop screen
8
 Oral poster presentation format

15 minutes

• starting with presentation of up to 10 minutes maximum*

• remaining time for examiners to ask questions

 further exploring student’s understanding of the research

*mark penalties for longer

9
 Oral poster presentation format

Online MS Teams meeting with student and 2 examiners

• reliable internet connection
• poster presented on screen-share
• quiet private space/earphones needed*
• camera on throughout (student and examiners)
• presentation/examination is not to be recorded
• students should not read from a script
• Water on hand may be useful

*home, booked room in library; contact research project module convenors if you need help arranging
10
 Content of oral poster presentation and questioning

10-minute presentation allows you to go into more detail than in poster

Presentation and questions will assess student’s ability to convey:

• command of the background to the project
• how study fits in with current literature and research
• understanding of the methodology and any analytical techniques used
• interpretation of the results
• strengths and limitations of the study
• recommendations for future research and public health practice

11
 Some initial tips for designing poster and presentation

Know your audience

- remember your examiners will not have read your paper nor abstracts
Consider as an opportunity to interact with people interested to hear about your research
- your job is to keep them interested
Work on poster and presentation together
- how you present one may make you think about rearranging the other
Make sure you explain the relevance of your research
- initial rationale why was this needed?
- importance of the findings why should we care?
Plenty of online examples, templates, guides and tips
e.g., ‘Making a better research poster’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwMFhyH7_5g
12
Positives?

Negatives?
 Adding a personalised smoking cessation intervention to a
lung cancer screening programme:
The Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking (YESS) Study
Rachael L Murray1, Grace McCutchan2, Kate Brain2, John Britton1 Samantha Quaife3, Rebecca Thorley1,
Harriet Quinn-Scoggins2, David Baldwin1, Sarah Lewis1, Phil Crosbie4, Richard Neal5,
Steve Parrott6, Qi Wu6, Alexandra Ashurst7, Monica Londahl5, Pamela Smith2 & Mat Callister7
1 University of Nottingham, 2Cardiff University , 3University College London, 4University of Manchester, 5University of Leeds, 6University of York, 7Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

Background Trial M ethodology

Current smokers at high risk of lung cancer, attending Lung Health Check within YLST
Lung cancer has the highest mortality of all cancers in the UK. CT Immediate consultation with SCP, behavioural support, pharmacotherapy/e-cigarette
screening and smoking cessation have additive effects on reducing lung Explanation of trial and PIS provided

Positives?
cancer mortality, however there is no consistent evidence on how to Weekly contact for 4 weeks
most effectively embed smoking cessation support into lung cancer Randomisation
screening 4 week follow-up: control 4 week follow-up: intervention
Informed written consent As control group + personalised risk information (images
Smoking status (CO in quitters) of own CT showing emphysema and coronary
The YESS intervention was developed based on the Extended Parallel 1-to-1 and on-going behavioural support calcification where present or library image where not)
Process Model (Witte, 1992). We report YESS trial methodology, and
patient views and preferences on personalised risk information to 3 and 12 month follow-up
support smoking cessation in a lung cancer screening setting Smoking status (CO in quitters)
Psychological change variables

Intervention developm ent

Online survey with current smokers (n=8) to elicit views on: Simple images/format/messaging
•Absolute and relative lung cancer risk information
(pictogram vs bar chart)
•Time frame for lung cancer risk (1y vs 2y vs 5y vs 10y)
Positively framed. Dark background preferred

Scan images
Scan images of their own heart and lungs perceived as
Negatives?
more motivating than pictorial representations (bar charts or
Three focus groups with current smokers (n=9) and recent quitters pictograms) of risk reduction
(n=4) were shown: Present scan images alongside artist’s impressions of the heart and
•Lung scan images with areas damaged from emphysema vs lungs to facilitate interpretation of scan image
healthy areas
•Coronary artery calcification (images of heart) Lung cancer risk
•Time frame and format to present lung cancer risk An honest timeline for health is important
•Lung age Risk reduction over shorter time periods ‘negligible’ and demotivating
Little benefit in presenting absolute lung cancer risk reduction
Draft intervention booklet (right) shown to panel of current Lung age
Smokers (n=7) and recent quitters (n=3) to assess: Considered too threatening when presented as stand alone information
•Format preferences
•Comprehension of information Wealth indicator
•Potential influence on quit motivation Patronising. Already known

Final booklet
How stopping smoking will help your health
A er 20 m inu tes
• Your he a rt ra te g oe s ba ck to no rm a l.
A er 8 ho urs
• Ni co ne and ca rb on m onox ide
(a poi son ous g a s produc e d w he n sm oki ng)
in your blo od g oe s do w n by ha lf.
• Your oxy ge n l e ve ls g o ba ck to norm a l.
A er 2 t o 12 weeks
• You r blo od w ill flo w be e r aro und your bod y.
• T his me a ns m or e oxyg e n ca n ge t to im port ant pa rts of your bo dy.
A er 3 t o 9 m ont hs
• You r c oughi ng a nd br e at hing w ill g et be e r.
• You r lun gs w ill sta rt to w ork be e r - t hey ca n i mp rove by
up to 1 0% .

A er 2 day s A er 1 y ear
• You w ill not h av e any ca rb on m onoxi de • You r r isk o f g e ng he ar t dise ase w i ll g o dow n to ab out ha lf

Your scan results

le in you r b ody. th at of a p er so n w ho is s ll smo king .
• Your lun gs w i ll be cle a re r.
• You w ill be a ble to tas te and A er 10 years
sm e ll be er. • You r r isk o f g e ng lung ca nc e r w il l g o do w n to ab out half tha t
of a p e rson w h o is s l l sm oki ng .

xxxxx xxxxxxxxx A er 3 day s

• You w ill fi nd i t e a si e r t o br ea the .
• You w ill hav e mo re e ne r gy a nd w a lki ng
w ill be e a sie r.
A er 15 years
• You r r isk o f ha vin g a he ar t a ack w il l g o do w n to the sa m e a s
som e one w ho ha s ne ve r sm oke d.

For more informa on get in touch with:

Yorkshire Stop Smoking St udy Project M a nager O ne You Leeds Leeds Lung Health Check Clinical Tea m
Rebecca Thorley 0115 823 1361 0800 169 4219 0113 392 6688

For any queries related to your sm oking call:

Early feedback has been positive, the booklet has been well received This is a lot more [I won’t go back to
by participants. Evaluation is ongoing Now I’ve seen that I
effective than smoking]…not now
sticking pictures on want to keep a
you’ve shown me
Personalised risk information appears to have strong potential to clean bill of health
a cigarette packet that of my heart
optimise lung screening by leveraging the ‘teachable moment’ effect,
increasing motivation and efficacy to quit and prevent relapse

@RachM_UoN This work was funded by

@YESSstudy Yorkshire Cancer Research
)

Rachael.murray@nottingham.ac.uk The intervention development was additionally funded

Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs. 1992;59(4) by the T. Maelgwyn Bequest Fund (Cardiff University)
 What makes a good poster?

Balancing visual impact with good summary content (information)

• Clear, effective title (may not be exactly the same as your paper)
• Effective use of headings, sectioning, blank space, signposting, layout
• Focus on summary or main elements of your work
• Effective use of figures and/or tables
• Consider good use of colour
• Clear terminology, avoiding jargon and unnecessary acronyms
• You can use bullet points and/or paragraphs
15
 Tips on presenting your poster

• Plan and practice your presentation – within the 10-minute timing

• Connect your presentation with your poster, but don’t read it out!
• good approach to use poster as a tool - highlight areas whilst talking
(e.g., this figure shows…)
• Engage your audience (examiners)
• clear, paced speaking, look at audience

• A clear presentation enables your examiner questions to focus on further (interesting)

detail
 Gives you the most time to convey what you know overall

16
 Tips on answering questions from examiners

• Practice potential answers to questions

• Focus practicing concise answers – make best use of your 5 minutes!

• Show you can think critically ‘on your feet’

• Be honest if you don’t know the answer or can’t answer it from your study
…don’t be defensive
…and don’t make things up

17
 Remember to avoid

Too much information

– detailed text, too many numbers, figures or tables

Poor planning of presentation

Not practicing your presentation...and not practicing enough

Talking too quickly – trying to say too much

18
 Remember to keep in mind

Supervisors are there to provide support and advice

Your supervisor(s) can comment on one draft of the poster only

- if you have more than one supervisor only one can provide feedback

Practice presentations with your supervisor(s) are not permitted

You can rehearse your presentation with friends, family, fellow students

19
Questions?
 Today’s workshop activity on poster design

In groups:
• 5 minutes to read a poster
• 5 minutes to:
• decide mark for each section using descriptive marking criteria
• collectively decide overall mark
• list 4 key reasons for mark
- e.g., 2 good points and 2 points needing improvement

Share with the class:

• your overall mark and 4 key reasons for marks

21
Marking schedule for poster and presentation

22
 Marking criteria for poster
Degree class Distinction Merit Pass Fail

“Outstanding” or “Very Good” “Satisfactory” “Poor”

“Excellent”
69-60 59-50 49-0
100-70
Poster design and content
Overall design Very clear presentation of
Clear presentation of data Some lack of clarity in design Confusing inconsistent
data and original design
and arrangement of sections. and presentation of data. design.
elements.
Attention to detail Figure numbering and Some major typographical Key aspects missing, e.g.,
referencing correct, citations issues, but references scale bar on images, number
Very poor quality.
and figures professional present and figures referred of data points or repeats not
appearance. to in text. given, etc.
Story-telling/flow
Story not wholly clear, but Story unclear, poor flow and Very confused and
One clear well-defined story.
good flow. design. confusing.

Scientific content Data driven message for

poster, data extremely clear
and conclusion well-
supported.
Figures and tables Used to tell story not just to
present data; excellent
clarity.
Data support most of story
and are presented clearly.
Clear presentation of key
data.
Data not always relevant to
Lack of focus and very poor
story, key data not I place or
presentation of data.
poorly presented.
Unclear presentation of data, Very confused and
and/or key data lacking. confusing.

23
 Maternal perinatal depression and the risk of injuries
in preschool children
Ruth Baker, Laila J Tata, Elizabeth Orton and Denise Kendrick

RESULTS
Figure 1: Crude incidence of child injuries according to exposure to
• Crude injury rates were higher for each injury type
maternal antenatal and/or postnatal depression
among children whose mothers had AN and/or PN
140 depression (Figure 1).

Incidence rate per 10,000 person-years

Neither antenatal
nor postnatal
120 depression • After adjustment, incidence rate ratios remained
BACKGROUND 100
significant for poisonings (p<0.0001) and burns
Antenatal (p<0.0001) (Table 1). There was no significant
• The relationship between maternal depression and childhood depression
80 association between AN and/or PN depression and
injuries is underexplored, with existing studies relying on
the risk of child fractures (p=0.02).
maternal reporting of injury occurrences. 60
Postnatal
depression
40
• We aimed to assess the risk of three common childhood
injuries according to whether the mother had antenatal 20
CONCLUSIONS
depression (AN), postnatal depression (PN), or both. Both antenatal
and postnatal
0
depression
Poisonings Fractures Burns Maternal antenatal and postnatal
depression were associated with an
METHODS increased risk of poisonings and burns
Table 1: Adjusted incidence rate ratios for the association between child
injuries and maternal antenatal and/or postnatal depression occurring in children aged 0-4.
• Study population: 209,418 mother-child pairs who had
linked primary care and hospitalisation data from the Clinical Maternal depression may be a modifiable
Adjusted incidence rate ratios* (95% confidence intervals)
Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics risk factor for child poisonings and burns.
for the period 1997-2014.
POISONINGS FRACTURES BURNS
Neither AN/PN Future work includes assessing whether the
• Exposure: Mothers who had antenatal and/or postnatal 1.0 1.0 1.0
increased risk can be explained by the
depression
depression were identified using clinical diagnoses, chronicity and timing of maternal depression
AN depression 1.52 (1.23-1.89) 1.10 (0.91-1.33) 1.24 (1.03-1.49)
antidepressant medications and hospitalisations. during the child’s early years of life.
PN depression 1.64 (1.44-1.86) 1.09 (0.87-1.36) 1.29 (1.15-1.44)
• Statistical analysis: Poisoning, fracture and burn incidence
rates for children aged 0-4 were estimated per 10,000 Both AN & PN 1.94 (1.63-2.32) 0.96 (0.81-1.14) 1.32 (1.13-1.55)
person-years. Adjusted incidence rate ratios were estimated depression

using Poisson regression. *adjusted for maternal age at delivery, socioeconomic status, number of older children/siblings, total number Further information: ruth.baker2@nhs.net
of children aged <5 in household

School for Primary Care Research

The National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR) is a partnership between the Universities of
Birmingham, Bristol, Keele, Manchester, Nottingham, Oxford, Southampton and University College London.
This poster summarises independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research. The
views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
 The use of linked health and mortality data to inform injury prevention strategies
Ruth Baker1, Laila J Tata2, Elizabeth Orton1 and Denise Kendrick1
1 Division of Primary Care, The University of Nottingham, 2 Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, The University of Nottingham

Age and sex Socioeconomic status Poisoning intent

Background 120 120 100%
Results
90%

Incidence rate, per 10,000 PY

Poisonings
• Among the study cohort 42,985 poisoning,

Proportion of poisoning events

Incidence rate, per 10,000 PY
80%
• Within England national guidance on
preventing injuries in children and young 80 80
70%
185,517 fracture, and 36,719 burn events
60%

people recommends a strategic approach 50%

Unknown
Undetermined intent
occurred.
Assault
to injury prevention, targeting interventions 40 40
40%
Intentional self-harm

to those at greatest risk.

30%
Unintentional • Different patterns of injury incidence were seen
20%
according to age, sex and injury type.
10%

• Despite this, understanding patterns of 0 0 0%

injury remains a challenge due to a lack of

0 4 8 12
Age (years)
16 20 24 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 • For each injury type, those from more deprived
Age (years) Age (years)
national injury surveillance data and socioeconomic groups had higher injury rates;
fragmented data collection systems. although the strength of gradient varied by
injury type and age.
• Recent linkage of a nationally
representative primary care research • The strongest gradient was for poisonings with
Age and sex Socioeconomic status Fracture mechanism
database, the Clinical Practice Research those in the most deprived areas having a two-
Datalink (CPRD) to hospitalisation and
500 350
100% Unknown
fold higher incidence than those in the least
90% Other
mortality data, provides a new opportunity 300 deprived areas (incidence rate ratio 2.24,

Proportion of fracture events (%)

80% Assault

Incidence rate, per 10,000 PY

400
Incidence rate, per 10,000 PY

95%CI 2.17, 2.31)

Fractures

to build a more complete picture of the 250 70% Animate mechanical forces

epidemiology of injuries in England. 300

200
60% Inaninmate mechanical
forces
50% Other falls • Mechanisms of injury also varied by age. E.g.
200 150 40% Fall while being carried proportions of fractures due to transport
100 30% Other transport accident
incidents and assault increased with age, as did
100 20% Car occupant, transport
50 accident the proportion of poisonings due to intentional
10% Motorcyclist, transport
self-harm.
Methods 0
0 4 8 12
Age (years)
16 20 24
0
0-4 5-9 10-14
Age (years)
15-19 20-24
0%
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24
accident
Pedal cyclist, transport
accident
Pedestrian, transport
Age (years) accident

• Design: Population-based open cohort

study.

• Study population: 2,147,853 0-24 year olds Age and sex Socioeconomic status Burn mechanism
Conclusions
living in England who had linked primary 100%
120
care, hospitalisation and mortality data for 160
90% • The new potential to link primary care,
the time-period 1997-2012. 80%
Unknown
secondary care and mortality data allows a
Incidence rate, per 10,000 PY

Proportion of burn events (%)

120 Incidence rate, per 10,000 PY
80
70%
Other more complete estimate of the burden of
60%
• Injury outcomes: Poisonings, fractures and 50%
medically attended injuries in England.
80 Inanimate mechanical
Burns

burns; three of the most common injuries of 40%

forces

childhood. 40
40 30% Exposure to electric
currents, radiation,
• Differing patterns according to age and injury
extreme temperatures
20%
Smoke, fire, and flames type reflect differences in underlying
10%
• Statistical analysis: Incidence rates, per 0 0 0%
mechanism and intent, highlighting the
Heat and hot substances
10,000 person-years (PY) with 95% 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24
importance of developing tailored preventative
Age (years) Age (years) Age (years)
confidence intervals (95%CI) by age, sex interventions across the life course.
and socioeconomic status.
Key: gender Key : Socioeconomic status • Inequalities in injury occurrences support the
• Injury mechanisms (e.g. falls) identified for Socioeconomic status was measured using the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010, a composite measure of relative deprivation compared to the rest of targeting of preventative interventions to
injuries leading to hospitalisation or death. Male England. households in the most deprived areas.
Female Quintile 1 (least deprived) Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 (most deprived)

School for Primary Care Research

The National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR) is a partnership between the Universities of For further information:
Birmingham, Bristol, Keele, Manchester, Nottingham, Oxford, Southampton and University College London. ruth.baker2@nhs.net
This poster summarises independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health.
 COVID-19 and the mental health of ethnically diverse healthcare workers in the
United Kingdom: A qualitative study
Irtiza Qureshi, Mayuri Gogoi, Amani Al-Oraibi, Fatimah Wobi, Jonathan Chaloner, Laura Gray, Anna @UKREACHStudy
Guyatt, Osama Hassan, Laura B Nellums*, Manish Pareek*, UKREACH Collaborative Group

BACKGROUND RESULTS Fig. 1 Factors influencing HCW mental health

• Healthcare workers (HCWs) and • 16 Focus groups with 61 HCWs (Table 1)
ethnic minorities disproportionately • Five key themes describing factors influencing HCW
affected by COVID-19.1,2 mental health (Fig. 1)
• Little insight into impact of
pandemic on mental health. Variable Sample (n=61)
METHODS Gender
• United Kingdom Research study into Male 26
Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes Female 35
among healthcare workers (UK- Age, median (IQR) 46 (22-69)
REACH) - qualitative sub-study. Ethnicity
• HCW focus groups Dec 2020 – July Asian 22
2021 to explore experiences, fears Black 15
and concerns, and perceptions about
Mixed 6
safety and protection during the
pandemic. White 11
• Data analysed using thematic Other 07
analysis. Job role
Doctors 13
REFERENCES Nurses & Midwives 12
1. Sze S, Pan D, Nevill CR, Gray LJ, Martin CA, Nazareth J, et al.
Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: a systematic
Allied Health Professionals* 15
review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. Ancillary Health Workers 21
2020;29:100630.
2. Lamb D, Gnanapragasam S, Greenberg N, Bhundia R, Carr E, CONCLUSION Dr Irtiza Qureshi
Hotopf M, et al. Psychosocial impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on 4378 UK healthcare workers and ancillary • Healthcare organisations must consider individual Research Fellow, School of Medicine, University of
staff: initial baseline data from a cohort study collected circumstances, and mental and physical health needs Nottingham, UK
during the first wave of the pandemic. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine. 2021;78(11):801-8. of a diverse workforce. Email: Irtiza.Qureshi@nottingham.ac.uk
 Today’s workshop activity on presenting a poster

All individually:
• 3 minutes to read a poster
• Listen to a 5-minute poster presentation
• Share positive and negative points relating to effectiveness, clarity, content

Gender and Health Scientific Workshop Poster Presentation - Abstract No. N6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9y_U_FLna0

Gender and Health Scientific Workshop Poster Presentation – Abstract No. S25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mgn0gOdZhs

29
 Marking criteria for poster presentation

Degree class Distinction Merit Pass Fail

“Outstanding” or “Very Good” “Satisfactory” “Poor”

“Excellent”
69-60 59-50 49-0
100-70

Oral poster presentation and answering examiners’ questions

Oral poster defence
Extremely clear and well
structured presentation.
Gives a highly accurate and
complete overview of the
project. Enthusiastic and
confident delivery.
Answering examiner Demonstrates excellent
questions understanding of subject
area, methods and findings.
Clear and well-structured
presentation. Gives an
accurate and complete
overview of the project.
Good delivery.
Demonstrates very good
understanding of subject
area, methods and findings.
Covers many of the key
points but lacks clarity in
places and the structure
could be improved. Some
key aspects of the project
are not presented. Delivery
could be improved.
Some weaknesses in
understanding of subject
area, methods and findings.
A poor presentation – lacks
clarity and structure is
lacking. Poor delivery.
Understanding of subject
area, methods and findings
extremely weak.

30
Questions?