Qualifying Exam Presentation Guidance

Scope & Time Management

• Strict $20\,\text{minute}$ presentation limit; a timer will be started when you begin speaking.

  • Going even a few seconds over is not allowed.

• Allocate time strategically:

  • Introduction (self + problem scope) ≈ $1{-}2\,\text{min}$

  • Methods & Results (heaviest rubric weight) ≈ $12{-}14\,\text{min}$

  • Discussion / Implications / Future Directions ≈ $3{-}4\,\text{min}$

• After presentation: $5{-}7\,\text{min}$ faculty Q&A, then you leave for a $10\,\text{min}$ deliberation.

Overall Presentation Flow (mirrors first-year Qualifying Rubric)

1. Self-Introduction

2. Social Problem & Need Statement

3. Purpose & Research Question(s)

4. Theoretical & Theological Frameworks

5. Methods (Systematic or Scoping Review)

6. Results / Findings (themes, figures)

7. Discussion, Implications, Future Direction

8. Conclusion & Return to Research Question

Introduction & Scope of the Problem

• Be concise—avoid "convincing" monologues; let data speak.

• Explicitly state: Why is this problem significant? Why now?

• Connect to Grand Challenges of Social Work or UN/UNICEF goals.

• New faculty prompt: “Why does God care about this problem?”
  → Provide biblical mandate early (see Theological section).

Clarify Review Type

• Say explicitly: “I conducted a systematic review” or “a scoping review.”

• Use that language on slides AND verbally to avoid faculty confusion.

Methods Section (High-Value Rubric Area)

• Include a full-size PRISMA flow diagram (downloaded, not linked).

  • Start count, screening, eligibility, final $n$ articles.

• State databases, date range, search strings, and protocols.

• Describe inclusion / exclusion criteria.

• Report descriptive stats:
  e.g., “Initial yield $= 785$ articles; after screening $n = 17$ remained.”

• Mention study designs:
  “$8$ qualitative, $6$ quantitative, $3$ mixed-methods.”

Findings / Results Section (High-Value Rubric Area)

• Use a dedicated slide titled “Major Themes.”

  • List each theme clearly; avoid crowding.

  • Optionally add short illustrative quotes or stats.

• If helpful, add supporting tables / charts.

• Be ready to navigate back to these slides during Q&A.

Theoretical Framework

• Identify the social-science theory(ies) guiding your lens (e.g., Social-Ecological, Family Systems, Critical Race).

  • Explain why this theory fits the problem.

Theological (Faith) Integration

• Provide biblical foundation, not just a verse.

  • Example: Caregiver burden → 1 Sam 17 (David) & Acts 9 (Dorcas/Tabitha) to illustrate communal care and hidden burden.

• Explicitly answer: “Does God care about this? How do we know?”

• Tie faith insights to social-work ethics and justice.

Discussion & Implications

• Interpret how findings address the research question.

• Highlight practical, ethical, or policy implications for the target population.

• Lead faculty “to the water” without revealing full innovation:

  • “Findings suggest the next step may involve ___.” (future direction box on rubric)

Conclusion & Return to Research Question

• Restate research question verbatim.

• Summarize whether and how it was answered.

• Offer one-sentence cliff-hanger of forthcoming innovation/pilot.

Slide Logistics & Technical Tips

• Suggested cap from some faculty: $\le 20$ slides (≈1 slide/min). More is OK only if you move swiftly.

• Download deck locally (PowerPoint/Keynote); do not rely on Canva online—time-outs ruin flow.

• Bring own laptop, HDMI/VGA adapters, clicker, and have Notes view for reference.

• Room: Business Center; arrive early (≈08:00) to test connectivity. Presentations are video-recorded.

Rubric-Driven Grading Insights

Weighting snapshot (approx.):

• Intro / Problem ≈ $5\%$

• Methods ≈ $20\%$

• Results/Findings ≈ $20\%$

• Discussion / Future Direction ≈ $15\%$

• Remaining % split among background, theory, theology, professionalism.
  Faculty literally check boxes on the rubric; hit every item to avoid downgrades.

Common Pitfalls (Lead to “Major Revision” or “No Pass”)

• Vague or absent distinction between scoping vs. systematic review.

• Missing PRISMA or unclear inclusion/exclusion math.

• Themes that do not answer the stated research question.

• Overlong narrative intro that drains clock.

• Weak or token faith integration (random verse w/out explanation).

• Relying on live internet (Canva, online teleprompters) → login delays.

Performance & Delivery Tips

• Think of it as a performance—practice until flow feels natural.

• Use story-telling structure for nerves: Observation → Data quest → Revelation → Next steps.

• Slides act as teleprompter & pace-keeper; don’t read cue cards.

• Consider memorizing opening & closing sentences; improvise within.

• Mental prep: meditation, prayer, or pump-up music (speaker prefers rap/trap) to enter “game-day” mode.

Exam-Day Logistics & Sequence

1. Arrive early, set up laptop, test slides & camera framing.

2. Faculty sets timer and video; you begin.

3. Deliver $20\,\text{min}$ talk.

4. Q&A $5{-}7\,\text{min}$; be ready to jump to slides on demand.

5. Exit room; $10\,\text{min}$ private faculty deliberation using rubric.

6. Re-enter for results (Pass / Pass-Minor / Pass-Major / No Pass).

Long-Term Payoff

• This 20-min deck = first half of final dissertation defense; do it well now and you’re “$10$ steps ahead.”

• Save slides; later append innovation section to complete final defense presentation.