Guidelines for spoken presentations Common errors and how to avoid them Richard Parncutt Uni Graz last revised

Rule no. 1: Content is more important than presentation Make sure your content is good before working on your presentation! Your question (interesting?) Literature (good? relevant?) Thesis (clear? neither trivial nor improbable?)

Text on slides Content  clear headings  hierarchical structure  concise points – say more than you write  acknowledge sources (author, year) Presentation  ca words per visual  high contrast between text & background  font size at least 20  appropriate ppt-animation (not too much)

Diagrams (graphische/schematische Darstellungen, Zeichnungen)  Generally better than text “A picture paints a thousand words”  Uncluttered Can the audience take it all in?  Acknowledge sources (author, year)

Graphs (Diagramme) Draw your own! use easy software e.g. Excel acknowledge sources Avoid clutter include only info relevant to your thesis audience should understand everything no 3D, no fancy tricks Use clear axis labels both measure & unit! (e.g. “joy rating”/”1 2 3…”) font size of all text: at least 20 Explain quickly & clearly e.g. by explaining one point on the graph

Tables Inappropriate for talks! Avoid them altogether! Present a graph instead.

Introduction Explain your main question with examples –summarize what the audience already knows Explain background in different disciplines –refer to general literature (not your results) (not necessary for SE Music Psychology) Highlight the relevance of your topic –why is it worth spending time (and money) on it? Explain the structure of the talk –what aspects of your question you will address and why (e.g. relevant independent and dependent variables)

An example at the start! visual diagram, graph, objet trouvé... auditory CD, instrument, voice... or both Youtube: to be safe, download video in advance, e.g. using Mozilla addon The example illustrates the topic* of your research – not the research itself. Don’t show a video of people talking about your topic. Don’t illustrate methods. *Forschungsgegenstand

Examples help your audience understand  clarify research questions  make arguments concrete  promote realistic generalisation  promote active listening  understand more in less time

The main central part divide it into subsections –each with its own question and conclusion present relevant detail –only info relevant to your thesis use graphs and diagrams –a picture paints…

Other people’s experiments (1) A theoretical paper combines the results of several empirical papers to create a new thesis. Don’t repeat the method sections! If the paper is in a good journal, we expect the method was good & the conclusions reasonable. So: Cut the detail! (not: no./age of participants…) Instead, explain in your own words (improvise!): why the experiment was done the main empirical idea (how it was done) the main result that is relevant for your thesis

Other people’s experiments (2) If you talk at length about an empirical study, an expert audience wants to know: authors, year, title, journal  Solution: reference-list entry in APA format as heading: Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (1999). The functions of music in everyday life: Redefining the social in music psychology. Psychology of Music, 27,

The conclusion of your presentation Repeat your main point or thesis –Summarize arguments for and against your thesis –Consider practical implications (What if your thesis really is true?) –What further research might clarify your thesis? Functions of the conclusion –summarizes previous detail –relates to what audience already knows  helps audience understand and remember

Your thesis Don’t be shy about it! It’s your main point! When summarizing arguments for and against it, put it in the heading! Otherwise we won‘t know what you are talking about ☺

The last slide A summary of your main conclusions Stays visible during the discussion (unless audience wants to see another slide)

General considerations Contents of the next few pages: communication strategies improvising the text audience interaction inform - don’t infatuate! timing common errors

Communication strategies clear structure –help audience to anticipate content –help audience to organize ideas content –rate of information flow – too slow or fast? –emphasis of important points –level: between tutorial and specialist –balance generalities and specifics

Improvising the text  typical at scientific* conferences  invent concise, clear sentences  optional: notes on cards, text on monitor Expand on each point!  improvise! (If you understand, this is easy!)  pause between sections Practise ask a friend or colleague for feedback *natur-, sozial- oder formalwissenschaftlich

Audience interaction gestures –expression, voice modulation eye contact –with individuals Respond to facial signals! Is your presentation… –interesting? –comprehensible? –too loud or soft? –too fast or slow?

Waking up your audience Academic talks don’t have to be boring. You want your audience to understand your point? First, wake them up! Enter something like “How to give an exciting research presentation” into Google and see what you find, e.g. “Key Steps to an Effective Presentation” by Stephen Egglestone “How To Give A More Exciting Presentation: A Note To Speakers” Don’t overdo it - if your audience laughs once, it’s enough.

Inform – Don’t infatuate!* provide:  clear, helpful, interesting information  avoid:  long, complex sentences  exaggeration  unnecessary jargon  unfounded claims  destructive criticism *belehren - nicht betören

Typical timing for a 20-minute talk SectionDuration Introduction5 minutes Main content10 minutes Conclusion5 minutes about 1 minute per slide

Some common errors Structure and timing –slides: too many, too few, too cluttered –unclear section boundaries –not enough time left for conclusion Presentation and content –not enough eye contact –too fast, slow, boring etc. –reading verbatim from ppt slide –not understanding own content

More common errors Introduction incomplete (e.g. no example) Main part insufficient relevant detail from literature Conclusion distracting new detail arguments, implications, further research do not refer directly to your thesis