Crafting the Ideal Research Presentation

04/02/2017

After meeting with Ms. Haag last Monday and discussing how to improve my presentation, I am feeling a lot more confident about my understanding of what it takes to successfully convey all the information from a complex research project to an audience.

An AP Research presentation has a completely different purpose from a Seminar presentation. In Seminar, we were building an argument based off of general information from many other sources. Any explanation/justification of a method or how an author came to conclusions was brief -- we were mainly just stringing together the conclusions themselves in order to support a thesis statement. Research, on the other hand, is breaking down, explaining, and justifying the conclusion of ONE argument, our argument. It is a justification of our question (a brief explanation of the lit review, just enough information to show the significance and gap in the field), an in depth justification and explanation of our method, a detailed analysis of how the results from that method answer our question, and an insightful description of the future directions and implications that our research uncovers.

As such, the content of an ideal Research presentation should efficiently convey just enough information from the lit review to show the significance and gap in the field, and then it should transition into a detailed justification and explanation of the method and the results it uncovers, along with an analysis of the ultimate answer to the question and what it means for society.

While I think that a lot of us have a good understanding of what content is necessary to include in a script, a lot of us are still struggling with creating the optimal PowerPoint. In Seminar, we could get away with generic pictures since we were conveying a bunch of simple ideas. However, now, in Research, we are responsible for explaining complex and very specific research. Every picture, diagram, or bullet point needs to be tailored specifically to explaining OUR research. Otherwise, the presentation is completely useless in helping the audience understand what we are saying. For example, in my PowerPoint, for the slide accompanying my discussion of the participants, I had a general picture of a few girls testing makeup.This generic picture did not convey that I had 50 participants or that they were the clientele from a local makeup store, the main points that I am trying to make. Thus, I changed the slide to be a diagram of 50 female bathroom silhouettes (to represent the 50 female participants) and used a smart art shape to label them as a sample of the clientele from a local makeup store. Ultimately, if there is no clear answer to the question "How does this picture/bullet point/diagram/graph help the audience visually understand the point that I am verbally conveying?" then that element of the presentation needs to be altered so that it can achieve that purpose.

Improving my presentation has been a lot of swapping generic pictures for more specific diagrams, inserting actual charts/examples from my results section, and adding visual interest/drawing attention to key points through animations and introducing bullet points/visual elements one at a time (as opposed to having all the slide's content come up at once). I have also condensed my script by cutting even more technical/specific information out of the lit review and synthesizing the results and discussion sections more so that each  conclusion leads directly into how it answers the question and its implications.

Going forward practicing my presentation, I plan on delivering it to my parents at least once per day while playing the PowerPoint on the TV beside me, and I will practice reciting the script with my slides up on my computer at least another two times per day. Every time, I will update the script and presentation if I discover a way to more naturally or effectively convey the information, and I will take advice from my parents and ensure that they understand all the points I am making. Also, I will give the oral defense questions to my parents and have them ask me a few at the end of each practice presentation so that I get used to answering questions at the end of a long presentation.

Overall, I am excited to present all the hard work I have done throughout the year and end high school by finishing a large project that I can be proud of! Good luck to everyone else on practicing and finishing their presentations. The finish line is truly in sight!

(752)

I Officially Feel Like I'm Drowning...But I'll Get Through This!

03/26/2017

Starting off with my current feels, I am officially 3 days into my 6-day work week (my last day off was Thursday, and my next day off is this Thursday), and, after filling in my calendar/agenda with my work schedule and my AP Research schedule for the next couple of weeks, I am feeling very overwhelmed! I know that April 14th marks the light at the end of the tunnel, but it is a very, very dark tunnel indeed.

I have finished the first draft of my presentation script and PowerPoint as of about 15 minutes ago. I am feeling pretty confident about the PowerPoint (I think I found some nice pictures and backgrounds and aligned it well with the information in the presentation...I know I might need to put a few more slides in once I practice more and realize how I can better visually convey the information). Regarding the script, I am pretty confident in all the information I included, and I was able to severely cut down the lit review. I have gone through a couple of the sections, and they seem to be in about the right time ranges too. Right now, though, the sentences are still wordy (like they were in the original paper); this week, as I practice, I plan on finding how I naturally say everything and editing the script as I go.

As far as the rubric goes, here is my understanding of each of the rows:
1: Explicitly state the research question, method, and conclusion and ensure that each are tied together/explained thoroughly.
2: All claims must be tied to evidence from the research, and these claims must then lead to implications and significance. Limitations of the evidence collected should also be addressed.
3: Answer these questions: "Why did you hold your initial hypothesis?" "How did your results align with your hypothesis? Why was this the case?"  
4: The visual presentation should engagingly bring attention to the main points and aid one's argument by complimenting what the presenter is saying. It should look professional and well-thought-out. The presentation should be well-memorized and well-spoken (the audience should not only be able to hear/understand the speaker, but feel obligated to listen because the speaker seems passionate about his/her topic).

In terms of how I adapted the content of my paper for the presentation, I severely cut down on the lit review -- my explanation of theories behind consumer choice, different studies addressing the health concerns of unnatural makeup, and theories behind branding were either mostly or completely chopped out. I figured that, since the rubric focuses less on justifying the research and more on explaining the research, findings, and conclusions, a lot of the lit review could be cut (I just kept what was necessary to reach the gap and my question). I also ended up cutting a lot of specific details about the procedure from the methods and mainly went into detail on the blind consumption test and how it answered my question. The results and discussion stayed primarily intact, as a lot of the information was important for rubric rows 2 and 3, showing what the research found and how it interacted with previous research, as well as the implications, significance, and limitations of the findings.

(545)

Less than a Month Until Presentations!!

03/19/2017

With April 14th right around the corner, I feel like I have so much work to do to prepare for submitting my final paper to the college board (Wow... I just realized that this will be the last piece of work to submit to the CB!). However, I am ready to put my game face on, hunker down, produce a killer paper/presentation, and end senior year with something significant before going to the college of my dreams (I have decided on Colorado School of Mines, for those who don't already know.)

Anyways, for this week's recap, I will begin with reflecting on the research paper commentary I so kindly received from Saara, Ved, and Rema. Overall, I still feel strongly about my lit review, as everyone seemed to be able to follow my argument easily. However, there were a few places that I received some helpful tips -- in terms of cutting words (although not a HUGE issue for me, considering I am not extremely far over the word count), Ved pointed out that I didn't need quite as much elaboration on each author's credibility. In some places, I could cut extraneous details without losing any of my own argument. In addition, when I transitioned from societal influences into branding, everyone recommended that I use a source within the transition, and I think that made the logical link a lot stronger. Lastly, I was able to clean up my significance a little bit with their advice (something I have struggled with throughout the process, so please keep that in mind as you are making comments on my paper).

Where I think the comments were the heaviest and most helpful was in the results and the discussion sections. In my results section, I think I did a good job coming to general conclusions and not saving the conclusions for the discussion section, but, in some places, I expanded upon those conclusions a little too much. I will cut words by minimizing some of those conclusions and saving the details for the discussion. Speaking of the discussion, from both Ms. Haag and my commenters, I feel like I got great feedback as to how to organize everything (save significance for the end, break up subheadings into different conclusions, etc.) and how to strengthen the connection between my findings and the lit review (unpack claims and conclusions a little more, find more sources). I have tried to expand upon the significance too, but, again, I would appreciate it if this week's commenters can look that over as well since I just wrote a lot of it from scratch this week and it hasn't been looked at by another pair of eyes.

In terms of how I feel about my paper scoring in the highest rubric categories, bear with me, but I am going to go through row by row:

• Row 1 - Scope, Significance, Gap: I feel like I am strong in creating a refined scope and clearly using the lit review to demonstrate a gap in the field that I am filling. However, I think I can probably make my significance sections stronger. 
• Row 2 - Academic Conversation: I think that the academic conversation and relation of each perspective to each other is strong in my lit review.
• Row 3 - Sources: I think I do a good job demonstrating the credibility of each source and the methods (as in, how each researcher reached his/her conclusions) in my paper. However, something I struggled with was finding academic sources for makeup, so some may not be as credible.
• Row 4 - Method: I think I sufficiently explain how my method allows me to answer my research question at the beginning of my methods section. 
• Row 5 - Results/Discussion: I think I use my data well to reach conclusions and have a sufficient analysis of limitations and avenues for future research/questions my research brings up. However, again, I have struggled with significance/implications. 
• Row 6 - Data: I have struggled finding a statistical test or way to prove that there is no clear "winner" or most superior makeup brand, as the rankings were all over the place and participants didn't seem to consistently favor a specific brand. If I could get tips on a test I could use or way to more academically use my data to prove this, then that would be great. 
• Row 7 - Design Elements: I feel like my tables, subheadings, and graph are all clear, especially with explanations included in the body of the paper, but please ensure that you understand them and comment if anything is unclear! 
• Row 8 - Citations: I kept with APA citation style, did not use any long quotes, and focused on my voice driving the conversation and using other sources, as opposed to letting those sources take over. 
• Row 9 - Wording: I tried to explain everything in terms that a non-expert in the field could understand. Again, please comment if anything is unclear though. 

And, lastly for this post -- how I feel about the presentation. I clearly remember the uncomfortable feeling of presenting in seminar, and the frustration of memorizing a 10 minute presentation (and this is almost twice as long!). I am also concerned about getting my whole paper's worth of information into 15 minutes. However, I know what I am talking about -- I have been working on this project for the entire year! And, I think once I get into it, I will be able to condense and summarize certain sections, especially from the lit review. Until I actually start formulating a script and practicing, I won't know exactly where I am at in terms of time, but I am confident I will be able to figure it out (I mean, I have to...)

Happy editing, everyone! We are almost there!! :)

(974)

First Draft Done!

03/12/2017

I can't believe that every section of the paper has been written! 5000 (well... 5076, so I will have to edit down) words of a project that has been six and a half months in the making...wow.

After finishing my discussion (or at least my first go at it... it is probably the section of the paper I am least confident about at this point) and reading through the whole mammoth of a paper, I have to say that I am proud of all that I have accomplished in AP Research this year. However, I still know that I have a lot of work and editing left to do. Now, in terms of further dissecting my feelings:

What I am Confident About:
I have to say that, of all the sections of the paper, I am most confident about my lit review. I feel that I  am strong in the way I incorporated various sources into an academic conversation and a logical argument. I like how I build the credibility of each of my authors and show HOW they came to their conclusions in order to distinguish what is known about the cosmetics market and also to find where gaps exist in the knowledge behind consumer decision making between natural and unnatural makeup. I think the organization creates a nice flow for the reader, and I feel strong in terms of my transitioning.

I also like the way that I transitioned from my lit review to my methods section and explained why a blind consumption test is best for my research (I worked on this a lot with Ms. Haag when editing the methods). I think that, throughout my methods, I thoroughly relate what I am doing back to how the information will ultimately be used to answer the question. Additionally, in the results section, I think I do a good job relating the data to the types of conclusions that my question sought to reach.

What I am Not So Confident About:
I feel like some aspects of my methods section are confusing, especially the parts explaining scales (e.g. the hedonic scale, how I added up scores on the blind consumption test and exit survey). I think this also hurts me in the results section when I harken back to these scores and plot them against the newly added information (yet another scale!) - the mismatch score.

The methods section is what I ultimately feel is the weakest. I tried to incorporate sources from my lit review and connect what I ultimately found with my results back to the academic conversation, but it feels choppy/clumsy. I also feel like I am struggling with the significance portion, and, right now, I have it before the limitations and avenues for future research, but I didn't know the most effective order to put those three parts in. Advice on how I could better connect the discussion section back to the lit review and draw more significance and implications from my conclusions would be very much appreciated.

(504)

Discussing the Discussion

03/05/2017

Hello again! It's been a wonderful week of exciting decision making. After discussing with my parents, I can officially say that I will be attending Colorado School of Mines in the absolutely lovely town of Golden, Colorado this fall. I could not be happier with the way things turned out! I am going to be studying engineering alongside intelligent peers who are also passionate about STEM and using it to improve the global community, and I get to do it while living in my favorite state. :)

Anyways, back down to business. This week I finished editing my results section, and I have begun the process of writing my discussion section. Below are the 3 sources I used to learn more about how the discussion section looks for other researchers who conducted blind consumption studies.

Citations: 

1. Bakke, A., & Vickers, Z. (2007). “Consumer Liking of Refined and Whole Wheat Breads.” Journal Of Food Science, 72(7), S473-S480. (Bakke and Vickers conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether consumers preferred refined or wheat breads and whether these preferences aligned with their self identified preference between the two types of bread.)2. di Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Torrieri, E., & Masi, P. (2007). “Consumer Acceptability of Vegetable Soups.” Journal Of Sensory Studies, 22(1), 81-98. (di Monaco et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether information regarding the ingredients, packaging, or the farming system involved in soup production affected consumer soup preference)3. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. H. (2004). “Predictive Validity of the Implicit
(Maison et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether soft drink consumers could determine the difference between Coke and Pepsi and whether their ability to determine this difference was related to the strength of their preference for one beverage over the other).

Association Test in Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior.” Journal Of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 14(4), 405-415.

Common Features of the Discussion Sections - Relating them to my Research:
All the discussion sections seem to serve one primary purpose - to explain potential reasons for why participant self-identified preferences either matched or did not match their blind consumption test preferences. For example, Bakke and Vickers found that more consumers who stated that they preferred refined bread often whole wheat bread products higher than or similarly to refined breads in the blind consumption test, and they reasoned that this misalignment was likely due to a common social stigma against the taste of whole wheat bread. Similarly, Maison et al., who found that consumers with strong preferences for either Coke or Pepsi were able to distinguish between the two beverages under blind consumption conditions much more often than consumers with a weak preference for either beverage, reasoned that those who indicated a strong preference were more likely to have sensory preferences, as opposed to merely emotional ones associated with the brands.

For my discussion, I will be articulating the potential alternative emotional responses to branding that account for for the large amount of misalignment between participant self-identified and blind consumption preferences, as my results showed no correlation between emotional connections to the natural product movement and the amount of misalignment between self-identified and blind consumption preferences. To do this, I will bring in some outside sources discussing other emotional factors associated with branding (i.e. emotions associated with high-end/low-end brands, ethical production measures taken by different companies, etc.) I will also discuss the reasoning behind consumers with exceptionally strong emotional connections to the natural product movement experiencing alignment between their self-identified and blind consumption preferences. Here, I will draw in Maison et al.'s findings and connect a consumer's strong preference with sensory distinctions.

(614)

Reading the Results

02/25/2017

Hello from Golden, Colorado! This past week, I have absolutely been loving my visit at Colorado School of Mines, and I'm thinking more and more that this is where I am going to end up in the coming fall. :)

But, until graduation, it's time to buckle down and finish this research paper! After analyzing 3 different blind consumption studies that I previously included in my methods assignment (cited below), I was able to draw a lot of connections between what I have written so far (I am a little ahead of schedule - I already had the first draft of my results section written at the end of last week) and what other researchers have written in my field.

Citations: 
1. Bakke, A., & Vickers, Z. (2007). “Consumer Liking of Refined and Whole Wheat Breads.”
Journal Of Food Science, 72(7), S473-S480.
(Bakke and Vickers conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether consumers preferred refined or wheat breads and whether these preferences aligned with their self identified preference between the two types of bread.)
2. di Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Torrieri, E., & Masi, P. (2007). “Consumer Acceptability of
Vegetable Soups.” Journal Of Sensory Studies, 22(1), 81-98.

(di Monaco et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether information regarding the ingredients, packaging, or the farming system involved in soup production affected consumer soup preference)

3. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. H. (2004). “Predictive Validity of the Implicit

Association Test in Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior.” Journal Of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 14(4), 405-415.

(Maison et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether soft drink consumers could determine the difference between Coke and Pepsi and whether their ability to determine this difference was related to the strength of their preference for one beverage over the other).

Two Main Features of All Three Sections - Relating them to my Research:

1. All the sources begin their results sections by identifying or measuring the degree of difference between the blind consumption test product preferences and the participant self-identified product preferences. Maison et al. especially paralleled my research because there were two variables; instead of just determining whether or not consumers COULD tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, the researchers aimed to connect this ability to preference strength between the beverages. Thus, in their results section, not only did they measure the degree of difference between blind consumption and self-identified preferences, but they plotted this against the strength of consumer preference for one beverage over the other. Similarly, I not only listed the differences between participant blind consumption and self-identified lip gloss preference, but plotted this against the degree to which the participant had been influenced by the natural product movement.

2. Then, the researchers draw conclusions based off of the results. For example, di Monaco et al. was able to determine that information regarding the ingredients within a soup affected consumer preference because consumers ranked organic soups higher than inorganic soups in their self-identified preferences than under blind consumption conditions. Also, Maison et al. concluded that, the stronger a participant's preference for one soft drink over the other, the more likely the participant was able to correctly identify Coke and Pepsi under blind consumption conditions (the plot created in the first part of the results section showed that participants were able to distinguish correctly between the beverages more often if their strength of preference was higher). Similarly, I made conclusions from my plot. Participants, no matter how influenced they were by the natural product movement, were likely to have self-identified brand preferences that were significantly misaligned with their blind consumption preferences, thus showing that makeup consumers' decisions are significantly swayed by branding, but not by whether the brand is natural or unnatural. 

(631)

Analyzing the Results

02/19/2017

Hello everyone! (In case you are unfamiliar with my research, my abstract is at the top of the page in white.)

Another week has flown by, and, during that time, I have been occupied with finishing my results section and outlining my discussion section. Since I am a little bit ahead in the game, having finished data collection before last week's blog post, I will backtrack and talk about how I analyzed my data.

After collecting 50 participants for my lip gloss blind consumption test and exit survey, I calculated a mismatch score for each participant (how different their preferences were between the blind consumption test and their self-identified preferences in the exit survey). I plotted this against how influenced they were by the natural product movement (a score calculated from how participants answered multiple choice questions about their consumption habits in the exit survey). If my hypothesis that consumers highly influenced by the natural makeup movement are more likely to choose products based off of emotional perceptions between the brands as opposed to sensory distinctions between the products, then participants highly influenced by the natural product movement (scores closer to 20) would have higher mismatch scores than participants less influenced by the natural product movement.

However, after plotting the graph (see below) and seeing the lack of trend (I had an R-squared value of 0.01639, very far from 1, which would indicate a linear trend), I learned that all participants tended to have relatively high mismatch scores (4-8), regardless of whether or not they were influenced by the natural product movement. Thus, I was able to conclude that many makeup consumers make decisions based on emotional perceptions of brands and not actual sensed quality differences.

However, one interesting thing that I noticed was that the few participants with very high natural product movement influence scores had low mismatch scores (0-2), while those highly uninfluenced by the natural product movement (negative values) tended to have high mismatch scores. The conclusion I drew from this was that consumers very staunchly for natural products may actually prefer the sensory feel of them and be able to differentiate natural makeup from unnatural makeup, even under blind consumption conditions.

I also decided to look at the overall favorite makeup brand, the one that scored the highest in the blind consumption test, in order to see if consumers tended to favor natural products over the unnatural ones, which would indicate a higher quality in natural makeup. Surprisingly, the unnatural drugstore brand L'oreal won out, with bareMinerals (natural high-end) coming in second, Burt's Bees in third (natural drugstore), and MAC last (unnatural high-end). Therefore, since L'oreal won, it cannot be concluded that natural makeup is inherently preferred among makeup consumers for its sensory qualities.

As for my game plan for the rest of the week, I am meeting with Ms. Haag Tuesday morning to discuss the outline for my discussion, and Tuesday through Thursday afternoon I will try to bust out a first draft. Thursday afternoon through Sunday, I am going to Golden, Colorado to visit Colorado School of Mines, participate in prospective student events, and interview for a scholarship (fingers crossed)! When I have downtime, I will try to edit the discussion and the full paper.

Until next time, have a great week and happy analyzing your results! 

(544)