Hey readers!
We started the week barely finishing my gargantuan paper, which weighed in at 8000 words and slowly was trimmed to less 6000 words! Thanks to Mrs. Haag for meeting with me repeatedly to trim the excess words. I think another few read-throughs tomorrow and Tuesday will put me within reach of the 5000 word limit. I'm particularly looking at the results section and methods section for cutting.
At the same time, I worked on creating a compelling presentation from my paper. I actually had a presentation that I had delivered at the American Physical Society Fall 2016 Meeting, which won an award for Best Talk. BUT THAT POWERPOINT WAS TRASH... Such a realization was one of those moments where you realize how much you've grown in AP Research. Having done so much on my own for this project, I have a new understanding of my research, so I thought of much better ways of conveying my information (not to mention replacing my barf-yellow background with a 1/cos(c) blood presentation template...).
I focused on showing my research process and using animations/pictures/screenshots to take the audience as close to the research I conducted as possible. Specifically, I was particularly proud of my animation to show the ellipse-fitting in 3LCAA (let me know what you think). One thing I was wondering was, since I have basically 4 separate experiments -- what do you guys think of intermixing methods and results? As in, going experiment by experiment. I think that might provide some more continuity than I currently have and emphasize the research process, but I did want to stay consistent with the rubric. What do you think?
It's been a really productive and fun week -- I edited others' papers, reduced the number of words in my paper, finished up making the final figures, created a first draft of my presentation and script, and visited my family in Memphis!
 |
| Savage meme, but I enjoyed my time in Memphis, especially eating Muddy's cupcakes with my cousins! |
| Salt bae -- more like adding 1k words oops... |
 |
| Oh yeah... |
Talking about the rubric -- here's how I thought it broke down...
Row 1 is basically ensuring you are following a robust research process, by using the literature review to find the gap, employing the best methods to research this gap, and then drawing correct conclusions from your gap. I tried to make my gap, question, methods, and conclusions really apparent with their own slides here.
Row 2 is assessing the progression of your research from results to discussion to conclusion-- taking the data you took, realizing what it says, interpreting it into conclusions, and then stating the implications and importance of the conclusions (WITH GOOD EVIDENCE). I think that combining the results and discussion in my paper and presentation will give me a good start here. In my presentation, I will need to make sure to tie conclusions back to the data I collected though, as it can be easy to just rattle off some cool conclusions without support in the interest of time.
Row 3 examines if your hypothesis was rejected or accepted, how so, and why... Again, evidence is key, except this time linking findings from the Lit Review to the Discussion is key 🔑. I focus on this point with hyper-hydrophilicity theory compared to the 3LCAA and RBS data we analyzed.
Row 4 assesses the quality of your visual aids and your presentation style. I tried to integrate lots of animations, diagrams, and explanations of apparatuses to keep the audience engaged. Moreover, I aligned my script to correspond to these animations, which will really allow me to excel here. My slides are a bit busy, but the nature of my project requires a graphs/tables with explanations and annotations.
Rows 5-7 evaluate the oral presentation. Based on the discussion I had in my meeting with Mrs. Haag, I know that in Rows 6 and 7 I need to emphasize the adaptations I had to do to finish my project, including performing analysis on a variety of fluids due to issues with human blood. Moreover, my research is extremely iterative, as I used 3LCAA to determine which samples to test with RBS. Such parts of the process are really important to emphasize. Such a response is crucial for Row 5, where I am asked to justify my choices. Overall, I need to use my slides and always point back to sources and data in my answers. Then, I should be good.
The plan for this week is to continue finessing my paper, perfect my presentation/script and start practicing, submit my final abstract, prep some oral defense questions, and work with my blog group... busy times ahead!
Always, though, we gotta remember to HemaDrop It Like It's Hot...
Cheers,
Yash
(796)
Hey Yash! I always enjoy reading your blog :). Its really fun to read and has a bunch of memes. Anywho HAPPY BIRTHDAY! YOU ARE FINALLY 18 and I LOVE YOU BRO. OK now I will get back to business. I will start with your script and then move onto your presentation.
ReplyDeleteIn your script, I like how you have shortened everything and gotten to the point very quickly. You did a very impressive job by cutting your paper down from 8000 to 6000. And an even more impressive job cutting your script from your 6000 word paper to its 2700 word form. I still think you can cut in some places, but overall, great job with the word cutting. One major critique I have that will help across the presentation rows is that you are sometimes too technical and do not define some of your terms that you use. I think this is due to the fact that you cut so many words from your paper to get to your script, that I think you may have left off some important information! In addition, I feel like you try to do a decent job relating to your lay audience, but it may come off as a little bit condescending depending on how you deliver your presentation. I am confident that you will be a great presenter, but just keep that in mind (and I know you won't do this, I'm just letting you know what not to do). Also be sure to engage with your audience a bit more, especially when you are discussing a graph or a chart or something of the sort that is important to viewer understanding of your project. Besides that, I think that your script is pretty solid.
Moving onto your presentation, I think you have an amazing presentation for a topic as complex and as technical as yours is! I think you do a very good job integrating animations and annotations to your visual aids such as your graphs and your charts to make it easier for the lay people in the audience and at the college board who will watch your presentations! In addition, I love your backgrounds! Its so you and its so HEMADROP! I definitely think your presentation looks good and I think now you just need to work on blending it well with your script! I think you can definitely improve upon Rubric Row 3 however, and make sure your hypothesis stuff is more clearly and explicitly stated and shown in your presentation. Besides that I think you are all good!
Thanks,
Ved Narayan
436 words
Hola fam! Happy birthdayyyyyy! I hope you ate some bomb Thai food, because what better way to spend your bday ;) Okay, so yeah, you have clearly been working very hard on everything to get to this point. So great job!
ReplyDeleteRow 1: You address all four parts of the research process. I honestly think that combining the methods and results section is the best approach for your project, and I found it a lot easier to understand your script that way. Something mostly specific to your lit review / methods section is that in attempts to obviously cut down on words, you ended up brushing over some key concepts of terms. I have made sure to point those out in my comments, so that you can provide a brief explanation. The good thing is you have the diagrams for these terms in your slide, so just make sure that you point to them and explain them when you bring up certain terms like "uniformity," "substrate," or "film." Also, I think there are some place in your methods/results where you can restructure the content to make it flow more logically.
Row 2: This is pretty solid. You present the results as clearly as possible with the level of intricacy involved in your project. And the discussion that compares your findings to previous studies and traditional techniques is effective in showing how your study fixes the limitations and problems of the past. That means you are naturally interacting with the past sources and academic conversation.
Row 3: I think that this is the part of the rubric that needs most attention. In your presentation you need to make your hypothesis more apparent. Further, I think you need to do a better job of interacting with your initial and final thoughts. Talking about how your understanding developed in key to this row of the rubric. So in your discussion, when you talk about your hypothesis, say something like, "Initially, I thought and hypothesized this. After conducting the research and finding this, I now know this."
Row 4: As far as the slides go, I think that while your project is technical, there are a lot of areas where you can cut the words from the slides and just rely on your script to explain the diagrams and figures. Right now, there are too many words that will distract the audience from what you are saying. Further, I think that you can improve on the formatting (especially in terms of color choices, font sizes, bullet points, etc.). Once that is fixed, I think your presentation will be solid. Further, there are certain words I have pointed out that when you are presenting you should emphasize. Also this row focuses on your presentation delivery, and I'm sure with the proper practice, you will present amazingly.
Yeeeeee!! Almost there! You got this!
Hey Yash!
ReplyDeleteScript:
First off I don't know if we are suppose to say if we are from BASIS Scottsdale. Next, you use we a lot and I know you did this project with a team but this is for YOUR ap grade. Also did you include any sources in here because there seems to be a lack of them (the discussion for future research and limitations really needs them) I think you are in the mindset that your audience will just trust what you are saying but you still need the sources from the LR to piece your credibility. Additionally, sometimes I feel like you also assume that we know all the definitions you are talking about and I get lost in some of the paragraphs with all the technical jargon. Overall, it is just explaining a bit more. i understand you had to cut words, but it just needs more explanations.
Slides: Pretty, but I think make the banner smaller would declutter everything. Additionally, the link to where you got the template on the bottom is a bit annoying. I think a nice amount of your slides are overcrowded and you just need to split them up into 2 or more to fix this. Please use the same font throughout and the same size. You also do not need as many words. Other than that it was solid.
Row 1: Everything needed is there, but it could flow all flow a bit better from section to section.
Row 2: Need citations. I see you have all the info, but just state where you got it
Row 3: I high key did not realize you had a hypothesis. Please just so the college board hears it, explicitly state “my hypothesis is”Additionally, there needs to be more interaction with the beginning and the end a bit more. I see it there but it needs to be more explicit. You also need to revisit the hypothesis and tear it apart.
Row 4: All critiques in the presentation are in the slides portion of this comment.Once fixed and assuming you present beautifully, it will be fulfilled.