The final project for this course will be a scientific poster based on a peer-reviewed empirical article that touches on a topic covered in the course. These will
The final project for this course will be a scientific poster based on a peer-reviewed empirical article that touches on a topic covered in the course. These will be very similar to an article review and will include sections on the study’s background information, gap in the current literature, the research question, methods used, results, study implications, and limitations, but will follow a standard poster format.
Sheet1
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Format- | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 |
| Clear/to-the-point | 🙁 | Way too many words… paragraphs don't belong on posters, no room for figures, writing had to be small and difficult to see, very difficult to follow. Clear they don't understand the main point of the article. | Pretty wordy, leaving very little space for figures, but still easy(ish) to follow. | Could have gotten the point across with less words, but still okay/not too overbearing. | A little wordy in parts with tmi, but still pretty concise in most parts. | CLEAR/TO-THE-POINT!!! The student clearly understood the main points of the article and was able to effectively simplify it for a poster. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Format- | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 |
| Follows instructions | 🙁 | Format is hard to follow, looks sloppy, and was clearly thrown together in a second without using proper formatting. | Kind of sloppy/thrown together and parts of formatting didn't follow directions (wasn't 48"x36", title/authors/affiliations were incorrect, etc.). | Decently organized and relatively easy to follow, but the formatting didn't follow directions for the most part (wasn't 48"x36", title/authors/affiliations were incorrect, etc.). | Only ONE of the following is true: format was slightly off, kind of difficult to follow a few times, not super organized, could be slightly easier to look at. | Perfect formatting, all sections are present (though not necessarily sectioned), easy to follow, organized logically, looks nice, effort was clearly made. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Format- | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
| References | No reference section. | Included reference for current paper, but no other citations. | Missing the reference for the current paper, but others are listed in-text and in reference section. | All references are listed (including the current paper), but missing in-text citations. | All references are listed (including the current paper), but not in the proper format. | All references are listed, in-text citations are included in the intro, and references are in AMA format (in-text citations are superscript numbers, references are in order of appearance on poster, and the citation is similar to APA format). |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Intro- | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 |
| Background/gap | Both the background and gap in literature were missing. | Attempted to write a section with background/gap, but it didn't make sense and they clearly didn't understand the point of the study. | Either the background info or the gap in the literature was missing. | The background info/gap were both present, but it was kind of unclear/confusing to the poster viewer. | Background info/gap is present, but they included WAY too much unnecessary information. | Both the background and gap in the knowledge were present, easy to understand, and to-the-point. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Intro- | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 |
| Research question | Absent. | The research question and/or hypotheses were very unclear and made a substantial jump from the background info/gap (showing that they really didn't understand the logical reason for the study). | The research question and/or hypotheses were present, but made a substantial jump from the background info/gap (showing that they really didn't understand the logical reason for the study). | The research question and/or hypotheses were present, but kind of confusing to the poster viewer. | The research question and/or hypotheses were present and clear, but didn't really match the background info/gap (showing that they didn't fully understand the logical reason for the study). | Research question and/or hypotheses were present, clear, and were a logical next step to the background/gap in knowledge. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Method- | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 |
| Task | Task was never explained. | Clearly didn't understand the task. | Didn't explain the task/participants/etc. well and clearly didn't fully understand the methods of the study. | Didn't explain the task/participants/etc. well, leaving the viewer confused. | Clearly understood the task, but maybe left out important information about the participants/etc. | Clearly understood and relayed the study's tasks, participants, etc. and conveyed that to the poster viewer very well. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Method- | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 |
| Figure(s) | No task figures. | Figures aren't clear/easy to understand and the location doesn't match the flow of poster. Maybe missing legends, titles, pieces, etc.. Clear that they just screenshotted and pasted them on the poster without actually looking at them. | Figures aren't clear/easy to understand. Maybe missing legends, titles, pieces, etc. | Present, but kind of unclear and doesn't logically match the flow of the poster. | Present, but kind of unclear/confusing to the poster viewer. | Nice, clear figures present in a logical location on the poster. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Results- | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
| Statistics | No statistics present | WAY too many unimportant stats were listed. Usually something like a participant demographics chart that isn't needed to tell the story. It's very clear they didn't understand the necessary stats to tell the story. | Too many unimportant stats are listed for a poster and it's clear that they don't really understand the stats they listed. | Only important stats are present, but are in a weird position/don't match the flow of the poster. "Which stats are these??" | Stats are present in a logical spot, but were way more than necessary for the study's story. | Only the important stats are listed, very simply. No words need to accompany the stats. They can just be listed on or near the graph that represents them. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Results- | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
| Graph(s) | No graphs are present. | Figures aren't clear/easy to understand and the location doesn't match the flow of poster. Maybe missing legends, titles, axes, pieces, etc.. Clear that they just screenshotted and pasted them without actually looking at them. | Figures aren't clear/easy to understand. Maybe missing legends, titles, axes, pieces, etc.. | Present, but kind of unclear and doesn't logically match the flow of the poster. | Present, but kind of unclear or doesn't logically match the flow of the poster. | Nice, clear graphs present in a logical location. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Conclusion- | 0 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 |
| Explain results | Absent. | Attempted, but made no sense. Clear they don't understand what the results actually mean or how they relate to research question. | Attempted, but was more of a results-in-words section (simply reiterating significant findings, etc.). Clear they don't fully understand what the results actually mean or how they relate to research question. | Conclusion is present, but kind of confusing. | Conclusion is present and made sense, but they included WAY too much unnecessary info for a poster. | Conclusion is present, clear, to-the-point, and shows that they understand what the results mean and why it is important for the literature/gap/research question. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Conclusion- | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
| Limitations | Absent. | Attempt was made, but also not really. Clear they don't know what a limitation is. | Attempt was made, but it didn't make any sense. | Attempt was made, but it wasn't really an actual limitation. | Limitations are present, but are confusing. | Limitations are clear, to-the-point, and make logical sense. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Conclusion- | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
| Future directions | Absent. | Attempt was made, but it didn't make any sense. | Attempt was made, but it didn't make much sense. | Attempt was made, but it wasn't isn't something that would be a logical follow-up to the study. | Future directions are present, but are confusing. | Future directions are clear, to-the-point, and make logical sense. |
| Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | Points: | |
| Presentation | 0 | 16 | 32 | 48 | 64 | 80 |
| No recorded presentation | Spectrum | Spectrum | Presentation uploaded incorrectly (i.e., was a powerpoint instead of a video), but otherwise perfect | Spectrum | Presentation was clear, concise, highlighted the main points effectively, was around 5 minutes long (or shorter, as long as the info was sufficient) | |
