iLMS知識社群(Sites)師生部落格(Blogs)朝陽首頁(Homepage)TronClass教學平台Login
Research Writing & Publishing II---- Seminar-- Tim's Presentation I (03-25-2013)
by 徐碧霙 2013-03-27 22:06:45, Reply(17), Views(1627)
 
 
Reply(17)
Voice is so energetic.
Interesting PPT design. (content part)
Good to point out the main point for the audience.


More eye contact for the audience.
Use the relax expression for your audience, do not be nervous.
Control your time within 10 minutes.


Q: After read this paper, what is the difference between Taiwan and Hong Kong's students?

Strength :
1 enough voice, i can hear what you say

2 PPT design more better than last semester presentation

3 highlight the key word and use posture to discuss the topic

Weakness :

1 some posture sees not polite on the stage

2 not fluency when you read some slide in your PPT

3 eye-contact

Q : Would that article you presented help your fulture own
research ?


Strength - Voice was quite loud enough, showed highly confidence and neat and clean PPt

Weakness - less eye contact, spoke not really fluently.

Question - Can you explain your PPt in slide 21, you did not high light anything, how did you defined that did not have a significant effect on students?
The presenter is able to keep the audience engaged most of the time. 
: PPT designs in slide no. 29 and no.17 are clear and interesting. 
: Ideas are well organized. 

 : Less eye contact.
: The speech at the beginning wasn't really fluent. 
: Some parts better use your own words. 

Based on the findings, what do you think the future research projects will be?  
Strengh: 1. The voice loud enough.
              2. You highlight the key words, it is easy to understand.
              3. It's good ppt design.
 
Weakness: 1. It's not very fluent, more practice is better.
                 2. More eye-contact is better.
                 3. Some words is too small. (on slide 19, 20, 21)
 
Question: What kind of questionaire does author use in his study? (ex: five-point- Likert scale)

Strength: First, you speak powerful so that we could hear clearly. Second, you use body language with audiences. Third, you explain the results of hypotheses clearly.

Weakness: First, you could have more eye contact with audiences. Second, you could speak fluently.

Question: Do you think the classmates could affect each other in ability grouping?

Strength: 1. Your voice is loud.
                2. Your ppt hightlight the keywords.  
                3. You has a confidence when you presented.
 
Weakness: 1. If you can more eye contact with audiences would be better.
                   2. If you can time control would be better.
                   3. If you practice more, you could speaking well.
 
Question: How did the researcher survey his topic? For example, questionnaire and so on.
Strength: prounciation, attitude, and fluence of speech improved.
Weakness: Control your voice, intonation. Sometimes spoke too loudly. Sometimes repeated the same
                 words too many times.
Question: Is "group teaching" really benefit to students' English learning or just conveience to teachers'
               lesson preparation?
               
 
 
 

Strength

1.          Big Voice

2.          Dressed casually

3.          Concentrated well

Weakness

1.          Little eye contract

2.          Not fluent

3.          Seems nervous

Questions

Could you give us the definitions of social inequality, society mobility, social solidarity, and economic development from this study?

What is heteroskedasticity meaning in the article of page 245 line number 3?

 gestures
 louder enough
 highlight the key words

 PPT design can be more professional 
 need more practice before presenting
 need eye contact

Q: Did the authors mention how they grouped 2,720 students before they conduct this study? 


Strength:
One your PPT, the highlight words are good to understand.
Your voice is loud enough.
Your are confident.

Weakness:
You should practice the pronunciation skillfully in advance. 

Question:
What is(are) the research question(s)?

 Strength part: 

(1) You speak clearly.

(2) Good time controlling

(3) Loud voice

Weakness part:
(1) You are a little bit nervous.

(2) You can give us more eye contact.

 

Question: 
Is it a quantitative study or qualitative study? 

1. S: Your pronunciation is good and your presentation is fluent. The structure of PPT is clear. Slide 17 shows the procedure in this paper very clearly. You alos keep eye contact with the audience, sweeping around.

2. The presentation is good.

3. Question: Does the author suggest that a teacher should use different teaching methods for students with different ability?

Neat PPT designs
more confident than last time
louder enough

Pronunciation should be practiced more
lost eye-contact
time-controlled

What's the resource of the survey question? Is there any example of survey question?
Loudly voice
You had some postures to assist your presentation.
You were confidence when you are present.

In your slide 3, I think you can let your ppt words just stay in the ppt, don't let them to disappeared.
Your present was not fluently enough this time.
It seems not enough professional presentation, maybe you have to do more practice will be better.

Do the research have pilot study in this paper?
strength: You under the key point in your power point slides.
               You are very confidence.
               Your voice loudly enough.
Weakness: You have to practice your presentation.
                  You can use more eye contact with audience.
Question: Could you explain your paper in briefly?

吳莎賓:

Thanks for your comments and question.

I’m afraid that I’m not able to respond because the study didn’t focus on what you asked. If you really want to know, you can ask the researcher.

 

RICKIE:

Thanks for your comments and question.

Yes. I think it will help me.

 

王澤:

Thanks for your comments and question.

Please take a look Academic outcomes of ability grouping among junior high school students in Hong Kong  p.250

 

陳維真:

Thanks for your comments and question.

I think I won’t consider the findings but I concern about the method part.

 

吳佳穎:

Thanks for your comments and question.

Self-esteem scale (Chen, 1996; Rosenberg, 1979)

 

梁庭欣:

Thanks for your comments and question.

I think they will affect each other.

 

陳俐君:

Thanks for your comments and question.

Self-esteem scale (Chen, 1996; Rosenberg, 1979)

 

李桂園:

Thank you for your precious comments and question.

I think it benefits students and teachers.

 

鄭智鐳:

Thanks for your comments and questions.

Social inequality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_inequality

Social mobility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

Social solidarity http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120515100309AAlVTvx

Economic development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_development

Heteroskedasticity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroscedasticity

 

Patty Tsai:

Thanks for your comments and question.

Please take a look Academic outcomes of ability grouping among junior high school students in Hong Kong  p.244(Method part)

 

Debbie:

Thanks for your comments and question.

There aren’t any questions.

 

Ivy Chang:

Thanks for your comments and question.

Quantitative study

 

劉思竹:

Thank you for your precious comments and question.

No, the author doesn’t.

 

劉倪均:

Thanks for your comments and question.

Self-esteem scale (Chen, 1996; Rosenberg, 1979)

 

Apple:

Thanks for your comments and question.

I’m afraid that I’m not able to respond because the study isn’t mine. If you really want to know, you can ask the researcher.

 

張斐喻:

Thanks for your comments and question.

Please take a look my PPT slide 26

Reply