Questioning in Research: A Practical Guide to Have Cooperative and Constructive Argumentative Dialogue

By Pablo Daniel Zavattieri

Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

View Presentation

Additional materials available (4)

Licensed under General Performance Usage.

Reviews

Write a review

  1. 0 Dislike

    Qiang Xu

    2.0 out of 5 stars

    The title of the lecture is a bit misleading. As outlined in Slide 2, only section 3 and section 5 are related to the title, i.e., related to communication, and they together only contributes to a tiny part of the entire lecture. A major part is devoted to "what is research." Yet, the discussion is mostly restricted to the scope of science, while mostly excluding engineering research from the scope of discussion. Another major part is Mr. Zavattieri's biological materials research. Although interesting, it is not related to the title anyway.

    The metaphor of circles to your learning and your research will definitely be interesting and even mind opening for those who get to know this metaphor for the first time. And I guess it is true for most of the undergrads sitting there. But if the audiences were PhD students, most should have already known this.

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to vote.

  2. 0 Dislike

    Shafin Mohammad Jameel

    4.0 out of 5 stars

    This was one of the most engaging seminars that I have listened to. Professor Zavattieri is an excellent presenter. I am going to structure my review in terms of points:

    Excellent

    • Introduction: He gets the audience hooked with his introduction on his background and research direction.
    • Slide design: His slides were thought provoking, not boring at all. Excellent use of visuals and videos.
    • Good discussion about what research is - I will remember the circle analogy - very nice way to put it.
    • Engagement: Professor Zavattieri was very engaging. He answered questioned promptly, had activities for the audience, and overall looked like he was enjoying presenting this.

    Good

    • Nice discussion about hypothesis - specially the part that a valid hypothesis can only be proved false, but not true.
    • I liked his perspective that we can constantly challenge our ideas by interacting with others.
    • His small presentation on his research is a very good demonstration of how to present research effectively.

    Bad

    • Nothing significant in my perspective - it was a very nice seminar.

    Ugly

    • The heading: The heading of this seminar makes it apparent that this is about how to have an argumentative dialogue. It is not touched here - there is probably only a single slide on this - and no clear examples. The presentation diverges to some other very interesting topics. So I did not really learn how to have a good argumentative dialogue. 

    I deducted a star for the last point, but I would strongly suggest anyone to watch the seminar, you will enjoy it.

     

    Reply Report abuse

    Please login to vote.