| Appropriateness |
The poster presents the results of a process-based, mechanistic model
rather than a statistical (curve-fitting) model.
Note well: If "No" the poster is not appropriate and the score for the poster is zero. |
No Yes |
| Appearance |
5 is strong
agreement |
| 1. Display attracts viewer's attention. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 2. Words are easy to read from an appropriate distance (3-5 feet). |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 3. Poster is well organized and easy to follow. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 4. Graphics and other visuals enhance presentation. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 5. The poster is neat and appealing to look at. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| Content
|
| 6. Content is clear and easy to understand. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 7. Purpose of model (question being addressed) is stated clearly. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 8. I understand why someone might be interested in the model results. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 9. Key simplifying assumptions are identified. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 10. There is enough
detail about methods (e.g., deriving rate equations and parameter
values) for me to understand the model and results. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 11. The approach taken is appropriate for the problem and technically sound. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 12. Poster is free of unnecessary detail. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 13. Conclusions are stated clearly. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 14. Conclusions are supported by model results. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| Presentation
|
| 15. Presenter's response to questions demonstrated knowledge of
subject matter and project. |
1 2 3 4 5 |
| 16. Overall, this was a really good poster presentation. |
1 2 3 4 5 |