P re se n ta tio n o n a

S T E M S e m in a r in th e
D e p a rtm e n t o f
M a th e m a tics
By
Sudhanwa Dewasthale
CHE 802: Research Methods
 Outline:
Introduction to the topic

Criticism based on following criteria:

Organization

Content

Presentation

Summary


 Front propagation in living
systems: From cell invasion
to population dynamics
 The seminar was given by Dr. Evgeniy Khain, Oakland
University.
 In the lecture, the mathematical model was developed on
the cell invasion phenomenon which plays an
important role in tumor growth and wound healing.
 In the stochastic model, cells movement, cell division and
cell-cell adhesion was considered.
 Modified Cahn-Hilliard equation and Fisher-Kologorov
equations were used for modeling.
 Continued…:
Also, a discrete stochastic model was developed on a
lattice for insect outbreak of Spruce Budworm.
For this, the stability of Low density refuge state and
high density outbreak state was compared.
A model was formulated on a lattice to show that the
direction of front propagation (i.e. the relative stability
of the two states) can be reversed by fluctuations.

 Now let me criticize
this seminar using
general guidelines in
Grading Rubric…
 Organization:
Clarity of Topic: Very good. Speaker was very much
clear about what he wanted to deliver and was
confident about the subject.
Sequence and Logic: The presentation was in proper
sequence and it was also logical.
Time Division: The time was not divided properly, so
that the last section was hurried up.
Quality of conclusion and summary statement:
The quality of summary was average, may be because
of less availability of time.
 Content:
 Presentation of Significance of the topic: Though it
was mentioned initially, the significance of the topic was
not presented properly to justify it completely.
 Fundamental Principles: No comments.

 Diverse Knowledge: The problem was discussed

considering various views, especially, maths, biology as
well as physics. But being highly focused topic, there was
little scope to think with wide angles.
 Command of concepts: Speaker had very good command
over concepts.
 Content (contd.):
Quality of explanations: Good. But again time was
not sufficient.
Technical Level: Presentation was highly technical.
Probably the target audience was ONLY from
mathematics graduates.
Handling of questions: Speaker handled the
questions, both technical and non-technical,
skillfully. But the explanation again was completely
technical.
 Presentation:
Clarity of speech: Slightly fast, but understandable.
Again TIME factor!!!
Speaking Volume: Voice modulation as well as
speaking volume was appropriate.
Slide Effectiveness: Slides were effective. Speaker
even used animation to explain the topic.
Fluidity of presentation: The seminar had three
summaries. So the fluidity seemed to be hampered
each time.
Eye contact: Eye contact of the speaker was good.


 Summary:
The overall presentation was good.

Less availability of time was the major

drawback.
The presentation was thoroughly technical.
The speaker was confident about the topic and he
had prepared good for the presentation.
Quality of presentation could have been improved
“non-technically”, but technically, presentation