How to Succeed in the 3MT Thesis Competition? Story | Made Hery Santosa
When I got an invitation email to participate in the 3-minute thesis competition (3MT) last month, I did not put much attention on that, to be frank. Apart from being busy lately, I felt not confident to compete with all research higher degree students, mainly PhD candidates (and MPhil students), and where some of them are native English speakers. But when I – and some friends – were asked to join by my supervisor :), we then stepped forward. As I said earlier, I did not set a high expectation on joining this. I know it is one of the most challenging competitions among research students in various Universities. It has been conducted for several times in Australia and New Zealand regions, and now spreading all over the world. The basic idea for this 3MT thesis competition is that you have to present your research to a non – specialist audience in lay language in 3 minutes. Surely, when you have a lot of things in your research, this is not an easy thing to do. The good thing about this is actually to test whether you can consolidate your ideas and share what you study to an audience that are not familiar with your area. “Imagine you’re telling your research to your grandmother,” my supervisor once told me and my fellow researchers. There, I crafted the script using very lay language and kept revising in every practice. I tried to base my performance on the criteria of the competition. As written in the Student Handbook, there are three main criteria to be considered; they are Comprehension, Engagement, and Communication Style. Each of them is further jot down as follows. 1. Comprehension – did the presentation help the audience understand the research? Did the presenter clearly outline the nature and aims of research? Do you know what is significant about this research? Did the presentation follow a logical sequence? 2. Engagement - did the oration make the audience want to know more? Was the presenter careful not to trivialize or dumb down their research? Did the presenter convey enthusiasm for their work? Did the presenter capture and maintain their audience’s attention? Would I like to know more about the speaker’s research? 3. Communication Style – was the thesis and its significance communicated in language appropriate to a non-specialist audience? Did the speaker use sufficient eye contact and vocal range, maintain a steady pace, and a confident stance? Did the speaker avoid scientific jargon, explain terminology that needed to be used, and provide adequate background information to illustrate points?