Peer Critique: Academic Presentation Using Adobe Spark

Did you watch the "Why We Critique Lecture?"

Although this video mentions papers and not presentations, all of the same ideas apply.

The critique process is two steps:

1)  Ask questions
2)  provide written detailed responses to the critique questions.


You will view your partner's presentation TWICE.  

Open a MS Word document.  

On the first time through your partner's presentation, if questions about the presentation's occur to you as you watch and listen, please write those questions in your Word document.  Make a note of the time stamp where the question occurred.  Do not make statements and do not provide commentary.  Write questions only.


You will complete this step inside of the same MS Word document from step 1.  Go to the top of the next blank page and complete step 2 there.

After viewing your partner's presentation a second time, answer each of the following questions thoughtfully and thoroughly.  Offer as many details as possible.  USE COMPLETE SENTENCES.  Simple “yes” and “no” answers are not acceptable.  If you ever feel inclined to answer yes or no for any reason, you must explain WHY you are responding this way.

Your response must be typed.  This is not a test to see if you have done things “correctly”; rather, this is an opportunity for you to receive responses and feedback about what you have presented from a viewer who is familiar with the goals of this assignment. 

After you have finished with your response, make sure your name is on the critique you have written.  You will then provide the presenter with a copy.  Email it to them by class time on the due date.   

You should also upload a copy of your completed critique to the appropriate folder in Ulearn by class time on the due date as well.

When you answer the questions in your Word document, you only need to provide the number of the question.  It's not necessary to rewrite the question.

1.   Does this presentation have a title?  What do you think it? Does it preview the ENTIRE content of the speaker's presentation?  Suggest ways the speaker might improve this.

2.  Watch the introduction only and assess the overall claim/thesis.  Is it clearly stated?  Does it provide a direct one sentence answer to the question posed by the presentation prompt provided by the professor? If you have trouble identifying it, please say so.   Identify the specific sentence that you think directly states the overall claim/thesis.  What is it? Write it out.

3. Does the preview the entire content of the speaker's presentation?  Does it provide adequate background info concerning the topic and preview the presentation's main points? Does the intro emphasize the importance and relevance of the topic to viewer/listener? Suggest ways the presenter may improve this.

4.  Now, review the conclusion only.  Does it adequately summarize the entire content of the presentation?  Does it restate the overall claim/thesis?   When viewed together, do the intro and conclusion form ONE complete thought? How so/How not? Explain.

5.  Is the overall claim/thesis well supported in the body of the presentation with specific evidence? How so/how not? Indicate one location in the presentation where the presenter’s evidence is strong.  Then find one example where the speaker needs more evidence. Refer to specific sentences or  passages to support your response.  Explain your reasoning.  What additional kinds of evidence (specific examples, etc) might the presenter use in this section of the presentation? Explain.  

6.  Try to identify what you see as the presenter's sub-claims.  What are they?  Write them down in the order they occur:  i.e., slide five introduces the sub-claim, slide six  provides evidence to support the sub-claim, etc. When you finish, explain how the speaker might improve the organization of their presentation.

7.What slides/sections of the presentation were clearest? Where were you most confused? Refer to specific slides, sentences, or examples to support your response.  How and where could the speaker make the draft of their presentation clearer?

8.   Does the speaker's conclusion adequately summarize the main points found in the body of the presentation?  Is there a restatement of the overall claim/thesis? Does this restatement also directly answer the question posed in the prompt provided by the professor? Does the speaker once again attempt to emphasize the importance and relevance of the topic to their audience?

9.  Does the speaker clearly introduce each source the first time it is used by verbally mentioning the author's name and the title of the work (remember that a film director is an author)?  

10.   Does the speaker have a works cited page? Is it formatted properly?  Are all sources cited in the presentation found on the works cited page?

12.   Is the speaker's voice always clearly understood? Do they speak at the appropriate speed and volume?  Do they maintain a professor tone and make consistent use of scholarly and academic language?

13.   Revision plan.  List three key changes that the speaker should make during the revision.

16.     What additional suggestions can you give the speaker?