Critique of the poster

Critique of the poster

PURPOSE

The purpose of my poster was to effectively present my research topic, describing my methodology and aims in a clear, precise manner.

The poster needed to be a brief, well organised summary, organised in sequence, with an introduction, outline of my planned methodology, results, conclusion and references. http://connect.le.ac.uk/posters

The poster needed to appeal to a specialist university audience of students and teachers, who would expect to view sufficient technical information.

DESCRIPTION

Reviewing my poster, I feel that its presentation — on five single-sided handwritten pages of black type — was confusing and lengthy. It was inadequate, bland and didn’t indicate key points.

EVALUATION

Reviewing poster guidelines for creating and designing academic posters on Leicester University’s Academic Poster website, I realised that mine failed to use good layout, short amounts of text, graphics, charts, or colour, to highlight key aspects of my outline research. (Feedback: Dr Chris Comber: email: 13.01.10)

Visually, it only contained one font and one (black) colour, and some rather bland headings, so it was not appealing in its presentational techniques. Use of different fonts to highlight my title, introduction and chosen methodology may have shown that I had a more logical structure for my topic .

My chosen picture – an image of a primary school teacher facing a class during a lesson – was an attempt to show an ‘effective’ teacher in control of a calm classroom situation. I feel, with hindsight, that the picture could have been more carefully chosen.

The rather basic, uniform presentation could have used Microsoft Publisher with a set ‘template’ of fonts and colours, to give it a more professional – and serious feel. My handwritten version perhaps looked rushed and hurriedly assembled and reflected my own lack of technical expertise and confidence in creating an academic poster.

There were also a lack of references in support of my very general points and assertions (eg how teachers are ‘challenged’; ‘lack of support’; ‘teachers are blamed for everything’ and so on, identified in my research background.

I really should have made it clear that I was outlining from professional experience as a primary teacher in Greece, or made it clear I had sourced these terms. Feedback: Dr Chris Comber: email: 13.01.10)

Finally, I realise that I should have more closely defined (using literature) ‘effective’ and ‘successful’ teacher (referenced back to research). Feedback: Dr Chris Comber: email: 13.01.10.

Overall, the disadvantage of my poster was that I didn’t properly define my methodology, clearly arguing the case for undertaking a case study. I should also have perhaps outlined how I would collate and present my case study.

I should also have read up on poster sites – including Leicester University’s http://connect.le.ac.uk/posters – to see their stage-by-stage guide to creating effective posters which are eye-catching and convey the right academic information.

I should have presented the strengths and weaknesses of such a case study, summarised into key points, more clearly.

I should have referenced my main summarised points for the case study – drawing a more careful distinction between personal and professional experiences and literature into ‘effective’ and ‘successful’ teaching. On these two words, I should have defined them precisely. They are used too vaguely.

ATTACHMENT

A template copy of what I should have done, approximately, is attached for your information. The source of this template is http://connect.le.ac.uk/posters: 5