Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Division of Science

First Place - Alex Lưu, Computer Science
Thinking like an Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Talking like a Human

Runner Up - Rachel Runqiu Jin, Psychology
Q: How to Be an Up-STANDING Human?
A: Don’t Fall!

Division of Social Sciences

First Place - Kalie Jamieson, Anthropology 
Strokes of Speculation: The Role of Visual Artists in the Creation of Palestinian Futurity

Runner Up - Habiba Braimah, Social Policy
Pursuing the Professoriate

Division of Humanities and Creative Arts

First Place - Emiliano Gutierrez Popoca, English
Master-Servant Relations in Early Modern Drama

Runner Up - Chih-Chien Hsieh, English
Archipelagic Thinking in the Literature of the Caribbean

People's Choice Award

Rachel Runqiu Jin, Psychology
Q: How to Be an Up-STANDING Human?
A: Don’t Fall!

We plan on continuing this competition next year, so keep an eye out for more info to come!

Rules

• Describe your research in under 3 minutes to a panel of judges while using only one slide.
  • A single static PowerPoint slide is permitted. No slide transitions, animations or 'movement' of any description are allowed. The slide is to be presented from the beginning of the oration.
  • No additional electronic media (e.g. sound and video files) are permitted.
  • No additional props (e.g. costumes, musical instruments, laboratory equipment) are permitted.
  • Presentations are limited to 3 minutes maximum and competitors exceeding 3 minutes are disqualified.
  • Presentations are to be spoken word and presented in a formal but engaging lecture-style presentation.
  • Presentations are to commence from the stage.
  • Presentations are considered to have commenced when a presenter starts their presentation through either movement or speech.
  • The decision of the adjudicating panel is final.

Judging Criteria

The following criteria will guide the judges decisions:

Comprehension & Content

• Did the presentation provide an understanding of the background and significance to the research question being addressed, while explaining terminology and avoiding jargon?
• Did the presentation clearly describe the impact and/or results of the research, including conclusions and outcomes?
• Did the presentation follow a clear and logical sequence?
• Was the thesis topic, research significance, results/impact and outcomes communicated in language appropriate to a non-specialist audience
• Did the presenter spend adequate time on each element of their presentation - or did they elaborate for too long on one aspect or was the presentation rushed?

Engagement & Communication

• Did the oration make the audience want to know more?
• Was the presenter careful not to trivialize or generalize their research?
• Did the presenter convey enthusiasm for their research?
• Did the presenter capture and maintain their audience's attention?
• Did the speaker have sufficient stage presence, eye contact and vocal range; maintain a steady pace, and have a confident stance?
• Did the PowerPoint slide enhance the presentation - was it clear, legible, and concise?

Tips for Success in the Competition

• Preparing Your 3MT Presentation (University of Sussex)
• About the 3MT (University of Queensland)