You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Elaborate on above, esp. for "needs work."
This was really wonderful. I would suggest being a bit more descriptive in the graph on Question 3 where you are discussing attention. I was not able to tell from that graph alone what units attention was being measured in. To find that out, I needed to look at your table. If the x-axis had been labeled a bit more carefully I would have known.
You've also done quite a bit of very impressive coding!
Some specific praise?
Your overall organization was wonderful and I particularly liked what I learned from Question 2 and the way you presented that data. I could understand that question just by looking at your box plot, which is wonderful.
Something I learned?
You did a great job of also explaining your methodology. It feels very robust. I also would have thought that the answer to research question 5 would have been the opposite of what the study showed so that was very surprising.
Specific constructive criticism?
Just make sure all your axis are labeled well so that someone can get the full picture from just the graph.
Something I know and that you, my peer, might like to know because it is relevant to something you struggled with.
On a more conceptual level, I have struggled with explaining my research to non-experts and I think this might still need more background for individuals not directly in your lab. To overcome this, I often try to put informational paragraphs that at written at a more general level before each of my research questions/statements. This could be helpful for attracting viewers from the field more generally.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Evaluation of final project by XXX
Remarks:
This was really wonderful. I would suggest being a bit more descriptive in the graph on Question 3 where you are discussing attention. I was not able to tell from that graph alone what units attention was being measured in. To find that out, I needed to look at your table. If the x-axis had been labeled a bit more carefully I would have known.
You've also done quite a bit of very impressive coding!
Some specific praise?
Your overall organization was wonderful and I particularly liked what I learned from Question 2 and the way you presented that data. I could understand that question just by looking at your box plot, which is wonderful.
Something I learned?
You did a great job of also explaining your methodology. It feels very robust. I also would have thought that the answer to research question 5 would have been the opposite of what the study showed so that was very surprising.
Specific constructive criticism?
Just make sure all your axis are labeled well so that someone can get the full picture from just the graph.
Something I know and that you, my peer, might like to know because it is relevant to something you struggled with.
On a more conceptual level, I have struggled with explaining my research to non-experts and I think this might still need more background for individuals not directly in your lab. To overcome this, I often try to put informational paragraphs that at written at a more general level before each of my research questions/statements. This could be helpful for attracting viewers from the field more generally.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: