This should be a 7 to 10 minute recorded presentation. You can use your visualization to present your findings or put sections of your visualization into Power Point or Prezi. If you are looking for more information on your presentation, seepage 84 of the Student Guide.
Students can use any format to record their presentation, recommended: Adobe Spark, Power Point Record, ScreenCast-o-matic.
Criteria Each of the following criteria should be reviewed individually. It is not intended that every presentation is able to satisfy all of the questions in order to get a strong rating as some of them may not be relevant to the research topic selected.
Weak: The presentation is sub-par for this criteria, i.e. insufficient information provided, inadequate detail or obvious inaccuracies.
Average: The presentation is average or just meets the criteria i.e. minimum required level of detail provided.
Strong: The presentation is strongly rated for these criteria, i.e. above average in terms of the level of detail provided.
Exceptional: The presentation is ‘best in class’ for this criterion & demonstrates exceptional depth and breadth of research/reflection.
Criterion 1: Understanding the challenge 1. Does the presentation demonstrate an understanding of the system, including how this challenge is related to other challenges, and the complexity of the issues, with justification for the challenge and geography selected? 2. Does the presentation demonstrate a deep understanding of the resources, roles, rules, and relationships inherent in the system which contribute to the results of their chosen challenge? 3. Does the presentation present a macro view of the challenge (including understanding of the scale of the problem, its causes, when it started, and what is holding it in place)? 4. Does the presentation clearly demonstrate an understanding of the key stakeholders affected by the problem (directly and indirectly) and any power dynamics between those impacted, those furthering the challenge, and those with the most power to create change?
Criterion 2: Understanding existing solution efforts 1. Does the presentation demonstrate an understanding of the resources, roles, rules, and relationships in the system and how existing solution efforts are (or are not) shifting the results of that system? 2. Does the presentation clearly articulate the overall landscape of current solution efforts including acknowledgement of a diverse range of existing efforts, such as policy, market-based initiatives, movements & networks, behavior change efforts, etc? 3. Does the presentation demonstrate a deep understanding of the nature and diversity of the existing solution efforts including an opinion on what is or isn’t working well? 4. Does the presentation explore some of the models for change being tried and what distinguishes the approaches? 5. Does the presentation look beyond a listing of specific organizations or systems actors in order to explore their relationships and any initiatives that join up some of the efforts?
Criterion 3: Identification of Gaps & Levers of Change 1. Does the presentation clearly identify any potential gaps or what is missing from the landscape of current solution efforts (for example, untapped market opportunities, regulation, or unmet services/linkages)? 2. Does the presentation clearly outline key levers of change that could contribute to the solutions landscape? Is the depth of those levers explored, indicating an understanding that not all leverage points are equal? 3. Are the gaps backed up by facts and research which show that these are not just assumptions about what is missing? Are there lessons learned about how to impact change in those gaps, and are these backed up by research? 4. Does the presentation look beyond one “solution” or singular new start-up idea to identify a range of possible opportunities for government, non-profits, educational institutions, media, researchers and/or other groups whose efforts might contribute to mitigating the negative impacts of the challenge? 5. Does the presentation include actionable insights that anyone looking to take action on this issue could learn from or build upon?
Criterion 4: Lessons Learned NOTE: If lessons learned were not explored deeply in the presentation materials, nor the presentation, questions regarding this learning should be included in the Q&A portion of the review process. 1. Does the presentation demonstrate a deep awareness and self-reflection of key lessons and insights derived from the research? 2. Does the presentation include any assumptions which were confirmed or challenged through this research? 3. Do the applicants link the key lessons they learned when exploring the underlying drivers of the problem to the proposed levers of change? 4. Do the applicants acknowledge gaps in their research and highlight what information might be missing to further improve the presentation (were they to have more time or resources)? Do they offer a humble and honest assessment of their own understanding and learning?
Criterion 5: Research Approach Note: If the research methods were not explored in presentation or Q&A, but were clearly stated in the submission materials, this portion of the review process can be ignored on this document. In other words, presenters should not be ranked poorly on their presentation/Q&A if research methods are not discussed, as this should have been included in their written presentation. If, on the other hand, the presentation/Q&A adds significant insight into their research methods which was not included in the presentation, this can be reviewed here. 1. Does the presentation demonstrate a diverse range of research sources (i.e. not only just desktop research but practitioner interviews too)? 2. Does the presentation demonstrate pro-active research methods (i.e. finding ways to get proxy information or data on related issues when the key data they were seeking was not readily available)? 3. Does the presentation provide sufficient detail to understand the research approach and methodology of the research undertaken, including a summary of key insights? 4. Have all relevant sources been adequately cited/referenced in the bibliography? 5. Have the applicant/s considered research ethics and proceeded appropriately in their approach?
Criterion 6: Quality of Presentation and Q&A 1. Was the presentation cogent, engaging, and well thought out? 2. Was the presentation time used wisely, with time to focus on all of the key topic areas? 3. Do the presentation visuals include a system map of some sort which goes beyond a simple list of actors and shows relationships? 4. Were the Q&A questions answered adequately with a humble and honest response in cases where the answers were unknown?