Via Web of Science (http://wok.consortium.ch): Title: The 10-minute oral presentation: What should I focus on? Author(s): Estrada CA, Patel SR, Talente G, Kraemer S Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES 329 (6): 306-309 JUN 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Abstract: Background. Little empirical evidence is available in the medical field defining the most important features of a scientific presentation. We sought to empirically identify what features of a scientific oral presentation experienced reviewers focus on when asked to identify the best features and areas to improve. Methods: Observational study of 44 presenters at a scientific meeting over a 4-year period. Reviewers observed presenters and identified the best features and made suggestions for improvement using an open-ended form. We developed a coding form based on three domains: content, slides, and presentation style. Two raters blinded to the presenter then coded the comments, and disagreement was resolved by concurrent review. Results: Reviewers made at least one comment about content in 42 (95.5%) of the presentations, about slides in 38 (86.4%), and about presentation style in 42 (95.5%). The most frequently extracted comments on best features of presentations in the domain "content" were identifying a key concept (43.2% of presentations) and relevance (43.2%). Similarly, best features in the domain regarding "slides" were clarity (50.0% of presentations), graphics (27.3%), and readability of the text and font size (22.7%). Finally, best features in the domain regarding "presentation style" were clarity (59.1% of presentations), pace (52.3%), voice (47.7%), engaging with the audience (43.2%), addressing questions (34.1%), and eye contact (22.7%). Various other comments were noted to improve presentations. Conclusions: Important features during oral presentations relate to specific areas of content, clear slides, and a presentation style that was well paced, engaging, and clear. Nonverbal communication is important in oral presentations. Title: The quality of podium presentations at the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons: Does a decade make a difference? Author(s): Church J, Balliet J Source: DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM 48 (8): 1569-1572 AUG 2005 Document Type: Article Language: English Abstract: PURPOSE: The technology of the seven-minute scientific presentation has changed greatly with the universal acceptance of computerized slides and graphics. We performed this study to see whether the quality of delivery has improved pari passu with technical advances in presentation of data. METHODS: In 1993 and in 2003 a sample of the podium presentations given at The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons annual scientific meeting was analyzed. Number of slides, type of slides, time of presentation, and quality of presentation were recorded. Quality was scored by the presence of poor presentation techniques such as presenting too fast for the slide to be comprehended, presenting data that were different to what was on the slide, using fonts that were too small to be react, and reading the exact wording of the slide. One point was awarded for each transgression and for any talk lasting more than 7.9 minutes; the higher the score, the worse the presentation. RESULTS: Thirty-eight presentations were analyzed from the 1993 meeting in Orlando and 40 were analyzed from the 2003 meeting in New Orleans. There was no difference in mean time of the presentation (1993, 7.5 minutes +/- 1.5 standard deviation vs. 2003, 7.2 minutes +/- 0.7 standard deviation), in mean number of slides used per presentation (1993, 16.4 +/- 3.3 standard deviation vs. 2003, 17.1 +/- 5.4 standard deviation), or in slides per minute (1993, 2.3 +/- 0.8 standard deviation vs. 2003, 2.5 +/- 1.0 standard deviation). Presentation technique was much worse in 1993, however, with a mean quality score of 2.2 +/- 1.1 standard deviation vs. 0.8 +/- 0.9 standard deviation in 2003 (P < 0.001). The most common fault in both years was presenting a slide too rapidly, a fault more pervasive in 1993 than in 2003 (1993, 30/38 presentations vs. 2003, 16/40). Only ten presentations went over the allotted time in 2003, by an average of one minute. In 1993, 18 presentations were too long, by an average of 1.8 minutes each. CONCLUSIONS: The basic structure of the seven-minute podium presentation has changed little over the last ten years, despite major advances in technology. The most notable improvements have been in the technique of delivering the talk. Title: Giving a powerpoint presentation: The art of communicating effectively Author(s): Collins A Source: RADIOGRAPHICS 24 (4): 1185-1192 JUL-AUG 2004 Document Type: Article Language: English Abstract: Effectiveness of an oral presentation depends on the ability of the speaker to communicate with the audience. An important part of this communication is focusing on two to five key points and emphasizing those points during the presentation. Every aspect of the presentation should be purposeful and directed at facilitating learners' achievement of the objectives. This necessitates that the speaker has carefully developed the objectives and built the presentation around attainment of the objectives. The best presentations are rehearsed, not so that the speaker memorizes exactly what he or she will say, but to facilitate the speaker's ability to interact with the audience and portray a relaxed, professional, and confident demeanor. Rehearsal also helps alleviate stage fright. The most useful method of controlling nervousness is to visualize success. When showing images, it is important to orient the audience with an adequate description, point out the relevant findings, and allow enough time for the audience to assimilate the information before moving on. This can be facilitated with appropriate use of a laser pointer, cursor, or use of builds and transitioning. A presentation should be designed to include as much audience participation as possible, no matter the size of the audience. Techniques to encourage audience participation include questioning, brainstorming, small-group activities, role-playing, case-based examples, and directed listening. It is first necessary to motivate and gain attention of the learner for learning to take place. This can be accomplished through appropriate use of humor, anecdotes, and quotations. Attention should be given to posture, body movement, eye contact, and voice when speaking, as how one appears to the audience will have an impact on their reaction to what is presented. (C) RSNA, 2004. Title: Outcomes of a research-driven laboratory and literature course designed to enhance undergraduate contributions to original research Author(s): Rasche ME Source: BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION 32 (2): 101-107 MAR-APR 2004 Document Type: Article Language: English Abstract: This work describes outcomes of a research-driven advanced microbiology laboratory and literature research course intended to enhance undergraduate preparation for and contributions to original research. The laboratory section was designed to teach fundamental biochemistry and molecular biology techniques in the context of an original research project. Site-directed mutants of a gene of interest were constructed, and the effects of mutations on the resulting enzymes were analyzed. Students were also introduced to the literature surrounding their project, electronic literature databases, and preparation of computer-generated slides for oral presentations. Student progress was evaluated through a laboratory report written as scientific manuscript, an oral presentation, a 10-page written review, and an essay examination. In the semester following the laboratory course, four of the 14 undergraduates joined the host laboratory to continue their projects as individual undergraduate researchers. Quantifiable outcomes of the course and subsequent undergraduate research included i) production of eight new site-directed mutants and preliminary characterization of the corresponding enzymes, ii) training of four individual undergraduate researchers prior to joining the laboratory, iii) publication of a manuscript with results from two undergraduate researchers, and iv) presentation of two posters with undergraduate co-authors at a national meeting. This research-driven approach may be applicable to enhance undergraduate contributions to other original research projects that have defined goals achievable within the timeframe of a single semester. Title: Improving oral presentation skills with a clinical reasoning curriculum: A prospective controlled study Author(s): Wiese J, Varosy P, Tierney L Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 112 (3): 212-218 FEB 15 2002 Document Type: Article Language: English Abstract: PURPOSE: The oral case presentation is an essential part of clinical medicine, but teaching medical students to present clinical data remains difficult. Presentation skills depend on the ability to obtain, process, and organize patient data. Clinical reasoning is fundamental to the development of these skills. We compared a clinical reasoning curriculum with standard ward instruction for improving presentation skills and clinical performance. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between October 1998 and May 1999, 62 third-year medical students at three hospitals were assigned to a 4-week clinical reasoning curriculum (n = 27) or a control group (n = 35) that underwent routine instruction. The curriculum consisted of four 1-hour group sessions and I hour of individual videotaped instruction, and taught students to use the principles of clinical reasoning, such as generation and refinement of diagnostic hypothesis, interpretation of diagnostic tests, and causal reasoning, to determine data for inclusion in the oral presentation. We videotaped students presenting two standardized case histories; one at baseline and a second 4 weeks later. Two independent evaluators who were blinded to the group assignments reviewed the videotapes and scored them for presentation quality and efficiency, and general speaking ability. RESULTS: Mean (+/- SD) presentation times at baseline were similar in the two groups (intervention group: 8 +/- 2 minutes; control group: 8 +/- 2 minutes; P = 0.74). Presentation time in students who were taught clinical reasoning decreased by 3 +/- 2 minutes, but increased by 2 +/- 2 minutes in control students. The difference in the changes between the groups was statistically significant (mean difference = 4 minutes; 95% confidence interval (Cl]: 3 to 5 minutes; P <0.001). Presentation quality scores at baseline were similar in both groups (intervention group: 17 +/- 8 points; control group: 20 +/- 7 points; P = 0.11). Students who were taught the clinical reasoning curriculum had an improvement of 9 +/- 6 points in the quality of their presentations, while control students had an improvement of 2 +/- 7 points (on a scale of 4-36). The difference in the changes between the groups was statistically significant (mean difference = 4 points; 95% CI: I to 7 points; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: A clinical reasoning curriculum, in combination with video-based individual instruction, improves the efficiency and quality of oral presentations, and may augment clinical performance. (C)2002 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.