Guidelines for Judging Student Presentations

by the ASP Education Committee

To be eligible for participation, the competitor

  1. must be first author, but need not be sole author,
  2. must be a student (graduate or undergraduate, or post-baccalaureate trainee) as of the time the abstract is submitted to the Program Committee,
  3. must present the paper or attend the poster,
  4. cannot have won this competition previously.

Regarding Criterion #1 above, the ASPEC would like to emphasize that this competition is intended to judge work that is conceived, developed, and conducted by students/trainees. We recognize the valuable contribution of professors and fellow students, and for that reason will accept multi-authored papers. However, we encourage participants to take seriously the notion that this is a student competition. As such, entries will be limited to undergraduate and graduate students, as well as post-baccalaureate trainees who have not yet enrolled in graduate school.

 

ORAL PAPER PRESENTATIONS

Each paper will be rated for both content and delivery.

Aspects of content to be rated will include:

  1. Research design: This refers primarily, but not exclusively, to methods of data collection and analysis. Judges will consider the following questions: Are the study's objectives clearly stated, along with specific hypotheses or test predictions? Are the research methods sound? Do they produce data that address the proposed objectives? Are statistical analyses used appropriately? Where such analyses are lacking, is there clear rationale for adopting another approach?
  2. Originality and Significance: This attempts to evaluate the importance of the study. Judges will consider the following questions: Does the study show originality or creativity in research design and/or interpretation? Does it address a new problem, or an old problem in a new way? Are the study and its results important? Do they shed new light on the issue at hand, or suggest important new methods, procedures, etc? Or does the study report a necessary and valuable replication of earlier work? Does the presentation make a clear case for how the research fits into a larger context? Does the student address the issue of the study's importance to the field of primatology? (Please pay particular attention to these last two questions.)

Aspects of delivery to be rated include:

  1. Organization: Does the paper present a logical flow of ideas and material? Does it move smoothly from one topic to the next, rather than jumping around, and therefore make a cogent argument? Has it been developed to make effective use of the allotted time frame?
  2. Delivery: Is the delivery smooth and professional? Does the competitor make eye contact with the audience? Are questions handled well?
  3. Visual Aids: Is the presentation enhanced by the visual aids? Are these well constructed, easy to interpret, and used effectively?
 

POSTER PRESENTATIONS

Aspects of content will be rated the same as those for papers.

Aspects of delivery to be rated include:

  1. Organization: Does the poster present a logical flow of ideas and material? Has it been developed to make effective use of the allotted space? Is the poster easy to follow and interpret?
  2. Delivery: Does the competitor interact effectively with colleagues who stop to examine the work? Are questions handled professionally? Does verbal exchange complement the presentation, rather than simply repeating it?
  3. Visual Aids: Is the presentation enhanced by the visual aids? Are these well constructed and easy to interpret? Is the overall poster aesthetically pleasing?

For both papers and posters, each of the five attributes will be rated on a 20-point scale for a maximum score of 100.

 

EVALUATION RUBRICS

View/download a PDF of the Student Award Oral Presnetation  and Poster Presnetation Evaluation Rubrics.