Masters in Public Administration - MPA 505 Qualitiative Research Methods
weekly menu
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Project

 

Evaluating Student Research Presentation
[each student needs to submit 2 copies of their final paper on March 16th at 9:08 a.m.]


RESEARCH TITLE: _________________________________ DATE: ___/__/___

PRESENTER _____________________________________

REVIEWER: You should be able to identify the following from the presentation. If not, this would be a weakness in the presentation. Please note responses below:

PROBLEM

 

PARADIGM ASSUMPTION/HYPOTHESIS

 

METHODS

 

DESIGN

 

MEANS FOR DATA ANALYSIS OR REDUCTION

 

PRESENTATION RANGE
INTRODUCTION- explanation is clear, coherent & understandable POOR ---------------------------------------------EXCELLENT
1 ......2......3...... 4...... 5...... 6...... 7..... 8..... 9..... 10
PRESENTATION- Well rehearsed and prepared. Individual sections flow into coherent whole. Absence of reading to audience. POOR ---------------------------------------------EXCELLENT
1 ......2......3...... 4...... 5...... 6...... 7..... 8..... 9..... 10
VISUALS - Clear, well-integrated, use of graphics as needed.

POOR ---------------------------------------------EXCELLENT
1 ......2......3...... 4...... 5...... 6...... 7..... 8..... 9..... 10

 
OVERALL EVALUATION: POOR ---------------------------------------------EXCELLENT
1 ......2......3...... 4...... 5...... 6...... 7..... 8..... 9..... 10

Other Comments: Identify one way in which this presentation could be improved.

 

 

 

Evaluators NAME: ____________________________________________________________

 

FINAL

Each student will write a critique of another student's paper. The review will be 2-3 type written pages and 2 copies of the critique will be provided. One copy will go to the author and the second to the faculty. This task is for 10 points. The review should include:

1. The name and title of the paper along with the reviewer's name and date of review.
2. Reviews should address --

  • What are the strengths of this paper? Where has the author excelled in this proposal?
  • What are the challenges the author needs to attend to? [For example, is the reviewer clear on the body of literature that has been used to support this proposal? Could the reviewer implement this research? Is the analytical approach adequate and clear to the reviewer?]
  • Recommendations to the author for strengthening the paper.
  • Each section of the review should have an appropriate subtitle.

    Discussions of critiques and scope of course will be addressed on March 23rd. - Finals week.