LAB TOOLS — PRESENTATION PEER REVIEW

Presentation Peer Review

Training the ability to watch a talk critically — Both the audience and the presenter are trained here

The audience trains critical listening; the presenter gets concrete points. Five minutes to fill in. 聴衆は「発表を批評的に見る力」を養い、発表者は具体的な改善点を得る。5分で書く。

Purpose

When we rehearse in the lab before a conference or a review, every member of the audience fills in this sheet.

For the audience: practice in not letting someone else's talk end at "easy / hard to understand," but putting into words on which slide, and what, did not get across
For the presenter: an opportunity to receive concrete points for improvement from several perspectives

Principles

Write honestly. Do not defer to seniority. "I did not understand" is also important feedback
Do not reject the presenter; connect it to the presenter's improvement
The presenter should not feel rejected, but use it to improve. No rebuttal is needed
B4 students may write "the parts I did not understand" just as they are. That in itself is an important comment

Structure of the sheet: five fields

Fill it in once, right after the talk, within five minutes. Fields 1–4 are required; 5 is optional. There is no scoring. "On which slide, and what" is more useful to the presenter than a number.

1｜The claim of this talk, in one sentence (in your own words)
Whether the story of the talk got through shows in this one sentence. If you cannot write it, write "I did not understand." That too is important information. The presenter checks whether the collected sentences match their own Contribution 1. If they diverge, somewhere the story is not getting across.

2｜The slide that hit hardest (number), and why it worked
Be specific about the good points too. With a number and a reason, the presenter knows what on that slide to keep.

3｜The point that most made you ask "why?" or "how?"
Be as specific as possible. The questions gathered here are the questions that will come in the conference Q&A.

4｜The slide that was hard to understand (number), and what was unclear
Several messages on one slide, a figure unreadable without text, an explanation that skipped a step, and so on. Add the number.

5｜What to apply to your own talk and research (optional)
Treating this talk as a learning opportunity, one thing you want to try, or avoid, in your own talks.

How the presenter uses it

Line up field 1 to see how your claim was received. If the answers scatter, the story is the problem
Tally field 4 and fix the slides that several people named first
Use the questions in field 3 for anticipated Q&A at the conference
Do not rebut. The place to answer the comments is the revised slides

Workflow

The presenter creates one page on the Presentation Peer Review board in Notion (presenter, conference name, date)
The audience fills it in within five minutes right after the talk
The presenter reads the comments and fixes the slides before the next rehearsal

Summary of this page: At rehearsals, every audience member writes within five minutes right after the talk ／ Five fields, 1–4 required and 5 optional, no scoring ／ "I did not understand" is important feedback ／ The presenter reads field 1 for how the claim landed, field 4 for which slides to fix, field 3 for anticipated Q&A ／ No rebuttal; answer with the revised slides.