Structural analysis of the literature in your discipline of interest.

This is a formative assessment due in week 3.

Review two research articles to assess their language, structure, and style.

Create an outline of the requirements relating to their instructions to authors, and submit:

• a 2 page overview (up to 800 words) that outlines the main format used in your target journals. At least half a page of this content (approx. 200 words) will be required to contrast the structure and style of your two articles.
• two printed/digital/scanned journal articles marked up with underlines and highlights.
• Copy of, or links to instructions to authors for the two target journals.

1: Select two journal articles from different discipline target journals and seek approval from the course convenor to use these.

2: Download the instructions to authors for each of these articles

3: Print and mark-up the journal articles for language and style in the various sections.

• Layout of sections
• Active/Passive language (Voice)
• Tense
•  English type (US/UK/Aus)
•  Reference style
•  Punctuation

Pitch a research idea to a general audience, using persuasive writing and ensuring to include an outline of the background concepts leading to the research idea, the key issue that will be addressed, and how the research will be pursued. This should be understandable to the lay person.

• Research you want to do
• Research you’ve done
• Research that is published
• Research that is done, but not published

This should represent approximately 1000 words and include key references from the discipline.

There is much to learn from observing presentations made by your peers and established professionals. This assessment requires you to observe three talks to assess the presentations’ strengths and weaknesses.

You are required to propose the talks that you wish to review for approval by the course convenor. Please email jen.rowland@mq.edu.au with the subject line MRES700 with the list of talks, or individual talks you wish to review.

Expected talks

1:         A 3MT presentation from the FMHS Heats

2:         An MQ 3MT finalist presentation

3:         A departmental talk in your discipline of interest. Please confirm that this talk is acceptable for this assessment task with your unit convenor prior to reviewing.

Talk Review

• Review the talks to gauge how effectively the presenters communicate their research. Keep a journal of the strengths and weaknesses of these presentations. What did you like or dislike about them? What would you do differently?
• Compare the strengths and weaknesses of the talks that you review.

You will deliver:

1. A rough journal of notes made whilst observing the 3 talks, preferably taken by hand. (may be scanned or photographed for submission). No less than one page per talk

2. A Critical Review of the individual presenters. Include perspectives on: Clarity; Personal presentation style; Slide quality; Body language; Intonation; Audience engagement.

3. A comparison of the speakers, contrasting their style, clarity and engagement, noting their individual strengths and weaknesses in communicating their research.

Parts 2 and 3 will be no longer than 2000 words in length. 

Choose one of the following:

Oral Presentation Present a 5-minute talk on a piece of completed research in your field. Your talk may report on a research project in which you were involved, or it may be based on a research article you have read (if the latter, submit the article). Present and submit at least one slide (in addition to a title slide) to accompany your talk.  *No limit on slide number.

OR

Poster Produce a conference poster on completed research in your field. Your poster may report on a research project in which you were involved, or it may be based on a research article you have read (if the latter, submit the article with your poster).

Imagine your poster will be printed on A3 sized paper (either portrait or landscape orientation).