3 Minute Thesis Professional Development Assignment

In preparation for the Spring 2024 Data Mine Symposium, The Data Mine wants students to practice 3 minute thesis to explain their research in a clear and concise manner. This assignment will help students develop their research communication skills and support the development of research students’ capacity to effectively explain their research in language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.

3 Minute Thesis

Imagine you have just 180 seconds to explain your complex research and project work your team as completed since the beginning of term… but you can only use one slide and leave out any technical jargon. That’s the whole idea of the 3 Minute Thesis (3MT)

The video doesn’t have to include everything you learned from the research paper, but it should discuss the motivation for the research topic, any necessary background (keep it brief), and the results. Think of this as a “movie trailer” or “elevator pitch” for your Q&A and discussion.

Assignment

Select one of the following research paper to do a 3 minute thesis on.

Create a 3 minute thesis and submit on Gradescope.

Guidelines for the 3MT

You must use a single static PowerPoint slide with no transitions or animations.
You are limited to 3 minutes maximum.
- 2 minute minimum.
Presentations are to be spoken word (e.g. no poems, raps or songs)

Examples and Resources

Watch 3MT presentations from around the world

How to write a winning 3MT script

How to design and impactful 3MT slide

How to deliver an award-winning 3MT presentation

Tell Them a Story: How to Avoid the Standard Boring Presentation

Record your video

There are a variety of ways to create your video recording. Here are some options:

Record audio for each slide and export the PowerPoint as a video.
- This works exceptionally well and is very simple. If you have an app demonstration, you can use a screen recording tool above to make two separate videos (PowerPoint and demo) or stitch them together in an editor.
Record your entire screen or selected portion of your screen on your Mac.
Record your screen in Windows 10.
Record using OBS Studio which is free for Windows, Mac, and Linux
Record using Apowersoft which is an in-browser tool for free
Record your screen on your iPad.
[Only recommended if multiple people will be talking in the video and option 1 above does not seem to work] Share your screen and record in Zoom. purdue-edu.zoom.us/

Edit your video

Edit your video on an as-needed basis.
This could mean putting two audio recordings into one video or cropping out a mistake.
iMovie for Macs
Shotcut is free for Mac/Windows/Linux

Upload your video

Go to youtube.com and click on the Camera > Upload Video. You have to be signed into your account.

Figure 1. Screenshot of uploading a video in YouTube.
Upload your video. There are lots of tutorials online on how to upload a video to YouTube. The most important part is to make your video Unlisted so it is not searchable.

Figure 2. Screenshot of listing video as

Add ADA Closed Captions

You are required to add closed captioning to your video on YouTube.
CC’s should be added to the draft and final video
YouTube will automatically generate Closed Captions which makes this step easy. However, you MUST edit them for punctuation, capitalization, and any spelling or interpretation errors.
This link is a great resource with tutorials on how to add and edit automatic captions on YouTube.
Below is an example of the auto captions that were generated for a test video. Click Edit to add punctuation and make changes.

Figure 3. Screenshot of editing auto captions in YouTube.

ADA Closed Caption Guidelines

Include no more than 32 characters per line.
One to three lines of text appear onscreen, display for three to seven seconds, and then are replaced by the next caption.
Captions are available throughout the entire video, even when there is no speaking.
Time captions to synchronize with the audio.
Require the use of upper and lowercase letters.
Use a font similar to Helvetica medium.
Captions should be accessible and readily available to those who need or want them.
Captions should appear onscreen long enough to be read.
Speakers should be identified when more than one person is onscreen or when the speaker is not visible.
Spelling is correct.
Words should be verbatim when time allows or as close as possible in other situations.
All words are captioned, regardless of language or dialect.
Punctuation is used to clarify meaning.
Add music or other descriptions inside brackets such as [music] or [laughter].
Indicate when no narration is present and describe any relevant sound effects.
Use of slang and accent is preserved and identified.

Rubric

The video rubric follows the same criteria as the poster rubric. In addition, The video rubric includes criteria about the speaker, the flow, and closed captioning. Video slides should be mostly bullet points and figures. Students should be speaking about the details of the project, not just read from the slides.

Comprehension and content

Category	Needs Significant Improvement (2 points)	Needs Improvement (4 points)	Meets Expectations (7 points)	Exceeds Expectations (8 points)
The presentation clearly explained the research project and helped me understand the research topic	Unclear or confusing explanation of the research project.	The presentation did not clearly explain the research project and did not help me understand the research topic.	The presentation clearly explained the research project and helped me understand the research topic.	The presentation clearly explained the research project and helped me understand the research topic in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Presentation clearly described the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research	Unclear or confusing way to describe the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research.	The presentation did not clearly describe the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research.	Presentation clearly described the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research	Presentation clearly described the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research in a way that was engaging and memorable.
The presenter was able to clearly articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience.	Unclear or confusing way to articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience.	The presenter did not clearly articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience.	The presenter was able to clearly articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience.	The presenter was able to clearly articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole.	Ideas were not logically built on each other; accessible examples were not provided throughout; there was not a storyline to the presentation as a whole. Ideas were unclear and confusing.	Ideas were not logically built on each other; accessible examples were not provided throughout; there was not a storyline to the presentation as a whole.	Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole.	Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Presentation clearly described the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work	The presentation did not clearly describe the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work and was confusing.	The presentation did not clearly describe the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work.	The presentation clearly described the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work.	The presentation clearly described the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Overall Feedback & Comments

Category

Needs Significant Improvement (2 points)

Needs Improvement (4 points)

Meets Expectations (7 points)

Exceeds Expectations (8 points)

The presentation clearly explained the research project and helped me understand the research topic

Unclear or confusing explanation of the research project.

The presentation did not clearly explain the research project and did not help me understand the research topic.

The presentation clearly explained the research project and helped me understand the research topic.

The presentation clearly explained the research project and helped me understand the research topic in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Presentation clearly described the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research

Unclear or confusing way to describe the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research.

The presentation did not clearly describe the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research.

Presentation clearly described the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research

Presentation clearly described the research strategy/design and the results/findings of the research in a way that was engaging and memorable.

The presenter was able to clearly articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience.

Unclear or confusing way to articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience.

The presenter did not clearly articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience.

The presenter was able to clearly articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience.

The presenter was able to clearly articulate the significance of the research in accessible terms for a general audience in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole.

Ideas were not logically built on each other; accessible examples were not provided throughout; there was not a storyline to the presentation as a whole. Ideas were unclear and confusing.

Ideas were not logically built on each other; accessible examples were not provided throughout; there was not a storyline to the presentation as a whole.

Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole.

Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Presentation clearly described the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work

The presentation did not clearly describe the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work and was confusing.

The presentation did not clearly describe the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work.

The presentation clearly described the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work.

The presentation clearly described the research purpose, conclusions, outcomes, and impact of research/project work in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Overall Feedback & Comments

Engagement and communication

Category	Needs Significant Improvement (2 points)	Needs Improvement (4 points)	Meets Expectations (7 points)	Exceeds Expectations (8 points)
The presenter explained the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience	Unclear or confusing way to explain the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.	The presenter did not explain the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.	The presenter explained the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.	The presenter explained the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Key terms were defined and background information was provided where useful	Key terms were not defined and background information confusing.	Key terms were not defined and background information was not provided where useful.	Key terms were defined and background information was provided where useful.	Key terms were defined and background information was provided where useful in a way that was engaging and memorable.
The research was presented as significant and purposeful and not overly generalized	The research was not presented as significant and purposeful and was confusing.	The research was not presented as significant and purposeful and was overly generalized.	The research was presented as significant and purposeful and not overly generalized.	The research was presented as significant and purposeful and not overly generalized in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole.	Ideas were not logically built on each other; accessible examples were not provided throughout; there was not a storyline to the presentation as a whole.	Ideas were not logically built on each other; accessible examples were not provided throughout; there was not a storyline to the presentation as a whole.	Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole.	Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole in a way that was engaging and memorable.
The single PowerPoint slide was legible, concise and enhanced the presentation.	Students used multiple powerpoint slides which were illegible, not concise and did not enhance the presentation.	The single PowerPoint slide was not legible, concise and did not enhance the presentation.	The single PowerPoint slide was legible, concise and enhanced the presentation.	The single PowerPoint slide was legible, concise and enhanced the presentation in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Overall Feedback & Comments

Category

Needs Significant Improvement (2 points)

Needs Improvement (4 points)

Meets Expectations (7 points)

Exceeds Expectations (8 points)

The presenter explained the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience

Unclear or confusing way to explain the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.

The presenter did not explain the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.

The presenter explained the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.

The presenter explained the research in jargon free language appropriate to a non-specialist audience in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Key terms were defined and background information was provided where useful

Key terms were not defined and background information confusing.

Key terms were not defined and background information was not provided where useful.

Key terms were defined and background information was provided where useful.

Key terms were defined and background information was provided where useful in a way that was engaging and memorable.

The research was presented as significant and purposeful and not overly generalized

The research was not presented as significant and purposeful and was confusing.

The research was not presented as significant and purposeful and was overly generalized.

The research was presented as significant and purposeful and not overly generalized.

The research was presented as significant and purposeful and not overly generalized in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole.

Ideas were not logically built on each other; accessible examples were not provided throughout; there was not a storyline to the presentation as a whole.

Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole.

Ideas were logically built on each other; accessible examples were provided throughout; there was a storyline to the presentation as a whole in a way that was engaging and memorable.

The single PowerPoint slide was legible, concise and enhanced the presentation.

Students used multiple powerpoint slides which were illegible, not concise and did not enhance the presentation.

The single PowerPoint slide was not legible, concise and did not enhance the presentation.

The single PowerPoint slide was legible, concise and enhanced the presentation.

The single PowerPoint slide was legible, concise and enhanced the presentation in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Overall Feedback & Comments

Presentation components

Category	Needs Significant Improvement (0.5 points)	Needs Improvement (1.0 points)	Meets Expectations (1.75 points)	Exceeds Expectations (2 points)
Uses an attention grabbing hook	The presentation did not use an attention grabbing hook.	The presentation used an attention grabbing hook that was confusing and did not add value to the presentation.	The presentation used an attention grabbing hook that added value to the presentation.	The presentation used an attention grabbing hook that was engaging and added value to the presentation in a way that was memorable.
Tells a captivating story using the ABT (and, but, therefore) template	Tells a unrelated story that does not follow the ABT template.	Tells a story that does not follow the ABT template.	Tell a captivating story using the ABT (and, but, therefore) template.	Tells a captivating story using the ABT (and, but, therefore) template in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Uses one or more story telling tools (apologies, humor, or character)	Uses no story telling tools.	Uses one story telling tool, but was poorly executed.	Uses one or more story telling tools.	Uses one or more story telling tools in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Intentionally leaves out technical jargon for a non-technical audience	Technical jargon was used throughout the presentation.	Some technical jargon was used throughout the presentation.	Technical jargon was not used throughout the presentation.	Technical jargon was not used throughout the presentation in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Provides closure at the end of presentation by bringing the story full circle	No closure at the end of presentation.	Closure at the end of presentation was not engaging and memorable.	Provides closure at the end of presentation by bringing the story full circle.	Provides closure at the end of presentation by bringing the story full circle in a way that was engaging and memorable.
Overall Feedback & Comments

Category

Needs Significant Improvement (0.5 points)

Needs Improvement (1.0 points)

Meets Expectations (1.75 points)

Exceeds Expectations (2 points)

Uses an attention grabbing hook

The presentation did not use an attention grabbing hook.

The presentation used an attention grabbing hook that was confusing and did not add value to the presentation.

The presentation used an attention grabbing hook that added value to the presentation.

The presentation used an attention grabbing hook that was engaging and added value to the presentation in a way that was memorable.

Tells a captivating story using the ABT (and, but, therefore) template

Tells a unrelated story that does not follow the ABT template.

Tells a story that does not follow the ABT template.

Tell a captivating story using the ABT (and, but, therefore) template.

Tells a captivating story using the ABT (and, but, therefore) template in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Uses one or more story telling tools (apologies, humor, or character)

Uses no story telling tools.

Uses one story telling tool, but was poorly executed.

Uses one or more story telling tools.

Uses one or more story telling tools in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Intentionally leaves out technical jargon for a non-technical audience

Technical jargon was used throughout the presentation.

Some technical jargon was used throughout the presentation.

Technical jargon was not used throughout the presentation.

Technical jargon was not used throughout the presentation in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Provides closure at the end of presentation by bringing the story full circle

No closure at the end of presentation.

Closure at the end of presentation was not engaging and memorable.

Provides closure at the end of presentation by bringing the story full circle.

Provides closure at the end of presentation by bringing the story full circle in a way that was engaging and memorable.

Overall Feedback & Comments

Closed Captions

Category	Needs Significant Improvement (2 points)	Needs Improvement (4 points)	Meets Expectations (8 points)	Exceeds Expectations (10 points)
Closed Captions	The closed caption did not follow the ADA Closed Caption Guidelines	The closed caption follows some of the ADA Closed Caption Guidelines	The closed caption follows most of the ADA Closed Caption Guidelines	The closed caption follows all of the ADA Closed Caption Guidelines
Overall Feedback & Comments

Category

Needs Significant Improvement (2 points)

Needs Improvement (4 points)

Meets Expectations (8 points)

Exceeds Expectations (10 points)

Closed Captions

The closed caption did not follow the ADA Closed Caption Guidelines

The closed caption follows some of the ADA Closed Caption Guidelines

The closed caption follows most of the ADA Closed Caption Guidelines

The closed caption follows all of the ADA Closed Caption Guidelines

Overall Feedback & Comments