Veterinary Student Poster Competition

The AASV is pleased to offer the opportunity for fifteen veterinary students to compete for awards in the Veterinary Student Poster Competition, sponsored by Newport Laboratories. Based on scores received in the original judging of abstracts submitted for the AASV Student Seminar in September, the top fifteen abstracts selected for poster presentation are eligible to compete in the competition.

Guidelines for preparing and mounting posters are available at www.aasv.org/annmtg/2016/posters.php. All posters to be judged must be mounted in the poster display area prior to 9:00 am on Sunday, February 28. Three judges who are not associated with the participating students or their projects will conduct the judging in the poster display area from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon. The presenting student MUST be stationed at their poster for judging during the assigned time, and should be ready at their poster ten minutes in advance of the scheduled time. A ten-minute time slot is allotted to each poster for the judges to ask questions of the presenter and score the poster. The scoresheet used for judging appears below.

The results of the poster competition will be announced and the following scholarship awards, sponsored by Newport Laboratories, will be presented during the AASV Luncheon on Monday, February 29:

1st place poster: $500
2nd & 3rd place: $400 each
4th, 5th, & 6th place: $300 each
7th - 15th place: $200 each

(These awards are in addition to the $250 travel stipend provided to each poster presenter by Zoetis and AASV).

 

2016 Student Poster Evaluation Scoresheet

Name: ________________________________________________

Title: _________________________________________________

Subject ______

• Original idea of student (4)
• Component of a larger study-student ideas incorporated (3)
• Confirmation of known information but possibly with a new twist (2)
• Confirmation of known information (1)
• Review (0)

Interest to Practitioners ______

• High interest and information immediately applicable (4)
• High interest but information not immediately applicable (3)
• Interesting and some components applicable (2)
• Less interesting or applicable (1)
• Not very interesting or applicable (0)

Subject contribution _______

• Significant contribution to industry knowledge(4)
• Moderate contribution to industry knowledge (3)
• Slight contribution to industry knowledge (2)
• Summary of current information (1)
• No real contribution (0)

Experimental Design Consistent with Expected Outcome ______

• Very consistent (4)
• Moderately consistent (3 )
• Only slightly consistent (2)
• Experimental design too simple or complex for expected outcome (1)
• Lacked experimental design (0)

Perceived Overall Effort ________

• Significant contribution to study (3)
• Worked hard individually with some advisor help (2)
• Average effort, possibly 50-50 with advisor or others (1)
• Mostly someone else’s work (0)

FRONT PAGE TOTAL _________________

 

 

Poster Presentation	Poor (0)	Fair (1)	Good (2)	Excellent (3)
Eye contact when asked questions
Posture
Poster was organized and easy to follow (LAYOUT)
Quality of poster (COLOR selection and BACKGROUND)
Quality of poster (FONT) - can read easily from 3 feet away
Quality of materials used (CHARTS, TABLES, PHOTOS)
Project goal or problem was clearly stated
Demonstration of a true understanding of the subject matter
Displays understanding of possible applications of the topic
Amount of relevant information covered
Validity of data
Project outcomes, recommendations, and conclusions were appropriate
Personal enthusiasm about the topic
Adeptness or ability to handle Q & A
BACK PAGE TOTAL

OVERALL TOTAL: Front Page_________ +  Back Page  _________ =  Final score _________