Studyoral PowerPoint Presentation Guidelines Abstract Of The

Studyoral Powerpoint Presentation Guidelines Abstract Of The Prese

Study/Oral PowerPoint Presentation Guidelines • Abstract of the presentation (150 words maximum) • In depth preview of the topic • An exemplar and discussion of a relevant research study using the method

Paper For Above instruction

The purpose of this paper is to develop a comprehensive guideline for preparing a study or oral PowerPoint presentation, focusing on key components such as abstract writing, topic preview, case study discussion, and evaluation criteria. The guidelines aim to assist students and professionals in delivering clear, well-structured presentations that effectively communicate research findings and professional insights.

Firstly, the abstract serves as a vital overview of the entire presentation. It should be concise yet substantive, capped at a maximum of 150 words, providing a succinct summary of the background, purpose, and scope of the presentation. A well-crafted abstract captures the audience’s interest while offering enough context to understand the main discussion points. It sets the tone for the presentation and ensures clarity of purpose from the outset.

Following the abstract, the presentation must include an in-depth preview of the topic. This section should elaborate on the background information, current relevance, and significance of the subject matter. For example, when discussing resiliency in female soldiers, the speaker should address historical trends, demographic data, and the importance of resilience in military performance. Providing context helps establish the importance of the research or discussion topic and frames the audience’s understanding for subsequent detailed analysis.

Moreover, an essential element is the discussion of an exemplar or a case study utilizing the focus system or subject. This demonstrates practical application and enriches understanding by linking theoretical concepts to real-world scenarios. In the context of military resiliency, this could involve analyzing specific cases like Specialist Shoshana Johnson or Major Rhonda Cornum, illustrating how resilience impacted their experiences and outcomes. Discussing these cases encourages critical thinking and illustrates the relevance of research findings in operational settings.

The presentation should also include a detailed exploration of the key content areas such as the pathophysiology of the system involved (if relevant), clinical manifestations, diagnostic studies, treatment modalities, and evaluation of treatments. For the topic of resiliency, this could be translated into understanding psychological resilience mechanisms, symptoms of stress or trauma, assessment tools, and intervention strategies used in military settings.

Equally important is addressing patient or individual education and safety, such as principles of the QSEN (Quality and Safety Education for Nurses) framework adapted to military psychology or resilience training. Facilitating class discussion is also emphasized, requiring presenters to engage the audience actively, pose questions, and stimulate critical analysis of the material presented.

Assessment rubrics focus heavily on clarity, depth, relevance, and engagement. The abstract and case presentation are each weighted, ensuring that learners demonstrate comprehensive understanding, practical application, and communication skills. By following these guidelines and focusing on each component thoroughly, presenters can create effective and impactful presentations that meet academic standards and contribute meaningfully to the field of military health and resilience research.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
  • Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review of empirical resilience research and implications for sport psychology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(10), 1093-1104.
  • Hartley, L. K., & MacLeod, A. K. (2017). Resilience and mental health in military personnel: An integrative review. Military Medicine, 182(3), e1652-e1660.
  • Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, perceived strain, hardiness, and health: A follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1-11.
  • Levy, B. R., & Kastelia, J. (2018). Military resilience training programs: An overview. Military Psychology, 30(2), 134-145.
  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2019). The five-factor theory of personality. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 139-153). Guilford Press.
  • Sharkey, S., & Petrie, K. (2014). PTSD and resilience in military personnel: The role of social support. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27(4), 456-463.
  • Southwick, S. M., & Charney, D. S. (2018). Resilience: The science of mastering life’s greatest challenges. Cambridge University Press.
  • Van Voorhis, P. (2017). Developing resilience in female soldiers: Strategies and challenges. Journal of Military and Veteran Health, 25(1), 12-20.
  • Wagnild, G., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165-178.

Related Assignments