Skip to content

Lab 31 — Project Presentations: Prep & Peer Review

Session: Week 16 · Session 31 · 90 min CLO: CLO-3 (presentation + review) Difficulty: Advanced

Learning objectives

By the end of this lab you can:

  1. Structure a 6-minute project talk: question → data → method → results → limits.
  2. Prepare a demo that survives (fallbacks, cached data, printed outputs).
  3. Give and receive structured peer feedback using a rubric.
  4. Turn feedback into a concrete fix list for the final submission.

Problem statement

Presentations start this session. Half the teams present today, the rest next session; everyone reviews. This lab is the rehearsal + review workbook: each team prepares its 6-minute talk, presents (or rehearses against the clock), reviews two other teams with the rubric below, and leaves with a prioritized fix list.

Dataset requirements

Your own project (dataset, model, results from Labs 23–30). Nothing new to load — the point is communication.

Step-by-step tasks

  1. Talk skeleton (10 min): fill in the 5 slides:
  2. Slide 1 — question + why it matters (one sentence each),
  3. Slide 2 — data: source, shape, license, one quality issue you fixed,
  4. Slide 3 — method: model(s), metric, one line on why this method,
  5. Slide 4 — results: ONE chart + the number that answers the question,
  6. Slide 5 — limits + what you would do next. Write the skeleton as markdown in projects/final/presentation.md.
  7. Demo dry-run (15 min): run your notebook top-to-bottom once more and confirm the key outputs (the chart, the metric) appear. Note one fallback if the live demo fails (e.g., print a cached number).
  8. Timed rehearsal (15 min): present to your team; hard stop at 6 minutes. Record where you overran (intro? method?) and cut accordingly.
  9. Peer review (30 min): review two other teams using the rubric below. Write 3 strengths and 2 improvements per team, with specific evidence ("slide 3 had no axis label" not "good job").
  10. Fix list (10 min): merge the feedback into a prioritized list (must-fix / nice-to-have) in presentation.md. Anything in must-fix that touches code goes into your notebook today.
  11. Commit: push presentation.md and any notebook changes.

Starter code

# Presentation — <project title>
**Team:** ...   **Presenting session:** 31 / 32

## Slide 1 — Question
<one sentence> · Why it matters: <one sentence>

## Slide 2 — Data
Source: ... | License: ... | Shape: ... | Fixed: <one quality issue>

## Slide 3 — Method
Model: ... | Metric: ... | Why: <one line>

## Slide 4 — Results
Chart: <file> | Answer: <the number>

## Slide 5 — Limits & next
<2 bullets>

## Peer feedback received
| From | Strengths (3) | Improvements (2) |
|---|---|---|

## Fix list
- [ ] must-fix: ...
- [ ] nice-to-have: ...

Expected output

  • presentation.md committed with all 5 slides filled, peer-feedback table, and a fix list with at least 2 must-fix items.
  • Evidence of the dry run: the notebook was re-run and the key output cell is fresh (or a cached fallback noted).
  • Two completed peer reviews delivered (3 strengths + 2 improvements each, specific).
  • One must-fix item actually fixed in the notebook.

Peer-review rubric (use for steps 4–5)

Criterion 1 (weak) 3 (solid) 5 (excellent)
Question clarity vague or absent clear, stated once clear AND motivates method
Data transparency no source/license source named source + license + one limitation
Method fit model unexplained model named + metric metric choice justified
Results shown no chart/no number chart or number chart AND number that answers the question
Limits none one limit limits + what you'd do next

Questions

  1. Why should slide 2 mention a data limitation you fixed rather than hiding it?
  2. What is the one number a stakeholder remembers from your talk? How did you choose it?
  3. Why practice with a hard time stop before the real talk?
  4. What makes feedback actionable (vs. "nice job")?
  5. A demo fails live. What is your fallback, and why plan it in advance?

Challenge task

Write the 1-line takeaway that your team will say last: " shows , so ." Then rehearse the talk once more and record (in presentation.md) your final time and which slide still needs trimming.

Marking rubric

Criteria Max Notes
5-slide skeleton complete 5 all sections filled
Dry-run evidence + fallback 3 re-run or cached note
Timed rehearsal recorded 3 overrun noted + cut
Two peer reviews (3+2, specific) 6 evidence cited
Fix list prioritized 3 ≥2 must-fix
One must-fix implemented 4 in notebook, committed
Answers to questions 3 Q1, Q3, Q4 correct
Challenge: takeaway + final time 3 1-liner + time
Total 30