Ć˝ĚŘÎ岻ÖĐ

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.
As a Ć˝ĚŘÎ岻ÖĐ student, your participation in full to activitiesĚýsuch as training workshops and volunteering are tracked on your Co-Curricular Record (CCR)!ĚýHaving your co-curricular activities listed in one document can help you revise your CV or cover letter, prepare for interviews, andĚýexplore career options. Learn how to leverage this important document through myInvolvement, and make your training count!
Back to top