±«ÓăÖ±˛Ą

Judging Criteria

Judges should be selected from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. They evaluate presenters on the following criteria:

Competitors in the 2017 3MTCAGS Criteria

Comprehension

  • Did the presentation provide a background to the research question being addressed?
  • Was the significance and context of the research explained?
  • Did the presentation clearly describe the key results of the research including conclusions and outcomes?
  • Did the presentation follow a clear and logical sequence?

​Engagement

  • Did the oration make the audience want to know more?
  • Was the presenter careful not to trivialize or generalize their research?
  • Did the presenter convey enthusiasm for their research?
  • Did the presenter capture and maintain their audience's attention?

​â¶Ä‹Communication

  • Was the thesis topic, key results and research significance and outcomes communicated in language appropriate to a non-specialist audience?
  • Did the speaker avoid scientific jargon, explain terminology and provide adequate background information to illustrate points?
  • Did the speaker have sufficient stage presence, eye contact and vocal range; maintain a steady pace; and have a confident stance?
  • Did the presenter spend adequate time on each element of their presentation - or did they elaborate too long on one aspect?
  • Did the presentation feel rushed?
  • Did the PowerPoint slide enhance the presentation - was it clear, legible and concise?

Ěý

Critères d’évaluationĚýACFAS

Voici les critères sur lesquels les membres du jury se baseront pour évaluer les présentations

Talent d’orateur et implicationĚý

  • Ont-ils dĂ©montrĂ© des qualitĂ©s d’orateur : voix claire et assurĂ©e, rythme, fluiditĂ©, gestuelle, prĂ©sence sur scène, etc.
  • Ont-ils transmis votre passion pour votre sujet d’étude et donnĂ© un caractère humain Ă  vos recherches?
  • Ont-ils suscitĂ© la curiositĂ© du public pour votre sujet?
  • Ont-ils fait des liens avec les besoins de la sociĂ©tĂ© ou l’actualitĂ©?

VulgarisationĚý

  • Ont-ils expliquĂ© les concepts ou les idĂ©es dans un langage accessible?
  • Ont-ils utilisĂ© l’humour, les figures de style, des exemples pertinents, pour illustrer vos propos?

Structuration de l’exposĂ©Ěý

  • La structure de l'exposĂ© et l’enchaĂ®nement des idĂ©es ont-ils facilitĂ© la comprĂ©hension du sujet?
  • Ont-ils expliquĂ© clairement les recherches que vous menez?
  • Les diffĂ©rentes parties de l'exposĂ© (introduction, dĂ©veloppement, conclusion) Ă©taient-elles bien Ă©quilibrĂ©es?

Coup de cĹ“urĚý

  • Point particulièrement exceptionnel laissĂ© Ă  la libre discrĂ©tion de chaque membre du jury. Il peut notamment s’agir ici de souligner l’originalitĂ© de la prĂ©sentation.
Back to top