Thesis Seminar Module 16: Mock Presentations (Feedback)

Group Feedback

Thesis_Defense_Presentation_Success_Guide
Thesis_Defense_Presentation_Success_Guide - Notes

Academic Presentation Standards: Strategies for Oral Defense

1. Foundational Philosophy: From Manuscript to Performance

The transition from a written thesis to an oral defense represents a strategic shift from a narrated document to a high-stakes performance. In an academic defense, you are entering an asymmetric information environment. You have spent months immersed in your data, while your examiners have only a narrow window of focus. Your primary objective is cognitive load management; your slides must function as a visual scaffold that facilitates the audience’s understanding rather than a script that competes with your speech. To project professional authority, you must synthesize your “subconscious” expertise into a structured narrative that proactively closes the information gap. By prioritizing the “So What?” and maintaining a clean, visual-first deck, you prevent the distraction of cluttered slides and allow the audience to focus entirely on your scholarly expertise.

2. Title and Problem Definition: Establishing the Research Hook

The first 60 seconds of a defense are critical for establishing credibility. This opening determines whether the examiners view you as a student or a peer.

Title Slide Requirements

To maintain professional standards and minimize early-talk distractions, the title slide must include the following:
- Mandatory Elements: Full Name, Title of the Study, and the designation “Thesis Seminar.”
- The Date Rule: The date must be written in full (e.g., June 8, 2026). You must not include ordinal abbreviations (st, nd, rd, th). While we say “the eighth,” we write only the numeral.
- Visual Hygiene: Use a professional, clean design. Forbid the use of irrelevant URLs (e.g., www.real), extraneous logos, or all-caps text, which significantly reduces readability.
- The Question Prohibition: Do not pose a question on your title slide. Doing so causes the audience to begin mentally answering it before you speak, creating a cognitive distraction that undermines your opening hook.
The Problem and Purpose Slide

Synthesize the “Problem” and “Purpose” of the study into a single, high-impact slide. The problem cannot be anecdotal; it must be grounded in a specific citation derived directly from your paper’s introduction. Use this slide to bridge the gap between a perceived void in the literature and your specific research objective.

Rhetorical Strategy: Answer, Don’t Ask

While rhetorical questions are common in teaching, they are strategic liabilities in a defense. They create “dead space” and awkward pauses where examiners may feel pressured to respond, breaking your narrative flow.
- Command: Your role is to provide answers, not pose queries. If you use a hook, ensure it is a statement of fact or a quoted authoritative source.
- Authority: If a question is central to your study, state it as a research objective you have resolved, rather than an open-ended prompt for the room.
3. Theoretical Framework: Narrative Construction and Scholarly Authority

The Literature Review is not a summary; it is a strategic story that establishes the benchmarks against which your results will later be measured.

Time and Volume Standards

The theory section has a target duration of 8 minutes. Structure this across 3–6 slides, where each slide represents a specific theoretical “point of view” or conceptual idea. This prevents “one-slide theory” congestion and helps the audience follow your logic point by point.

Standards of Objectivity and Evidence
- Third-Person Objectivity: You must maintain a professional distance. Use only the third person. Forbid the use of personal beliefs, “I feel,” or the second-person “you” (e.g., “when you teach…”).
- The Citation Mandate: Every theory slide must include a formal citation.
- Definitions and Literature-Derived Examples: Slides must feature formal definitions and specific examples found in the scholarly literature. Do not use personal anecdotes or “classroom stories” in this section; save your own observations for the Results.
4. Methodological Precision: The Chronological Account

Transparency in your method is the primary defense against “rabbit hole” questions. If examiners understand the rigor of your process, they are less likely to challenge the validity of your data.

Structural Components

You must use the heading “Method” to ensure exact alignment with your final paper. The section must provide a historical account of your research, including:
- Participants: Describe the subjects using pseudonyms and explicitly mention the use of informed consent forms to demonstrate ethical rigor.
- Instruments: Detail the specific tools used (e.g., observation sheets, interview guides).
- Design and Analysis: You must include a section on how you interpreted the data. Failing to explain your analysis often leads to skeptical questioning during the Q&A.
- Procedure: Provide the chronological order of data collection.
Visual and Strategic Requirements
- The Process Graphic: Do not use bullet points to describe your procedure. You are commanded to use a visual graphic—such as a timeline or process chart—to show the order of operations (e.g., Observations → Interviews → Surveys).
- Identifying Limitations: Proactively address limitations, such as sample size (e.g., “a 60% response rate was achieved, which is a limitation as it may not represent the entire group”). Acknowledging these factors demonstrates scholarly maturity and prevents examiners from “discovering” them during the Q&A.
5. The Results and Discussion: Data Triangulation and Critical Thought

This section is the “Heart of the Talk,” comprising 50% of the total duration (9–10 minutes). This is where you provide the primary evidence of your critical thinking.

The Triangulation Mandate

You must demonstrate triangulation by integrating different data points. For every finding, show how it was reflected across at least two sources (e.g., a survey result supported by a specific interview quote).

Detail and Analytical Synthesis
- Granular Evidence: Avoid vague descriptors like “students were engaged.” Use specific scenarios.
  - Example: “The teacher paused the rap section of the lesson because the students were not responding to the phonological cues, as evidenced in the classroom observation on June 5th.”
- Direct Quotations: Use quotation marks and direct excerpts from participant transcripts to provide an authentic voice to your data.
- Visualizing Directional Relationships: Use Smart Art, arrows, and flowcharts to show causality or sequence (e.g., how “repeated auditory exposure” leads to “phonological skill development”).
- The “So What?” Layer: You must compare and contrast your results with the theorists mentioned in Section 3. You are encouraged to agree or disagree with experts, provided you offer a logical, evidence-based reason for your stance.
6. Conclusions and Academic Closure

A defense must conclude with a definitive finish that revisits the initial problem and offers a forward-looking perspective.

The Conclusion Slide

Focus on key concepts and future implications. Forbid the use of paragraphs or blocks of text. Use concise phrases that summarize what the study discovered and how it impacts future practice or research.

Reference Standards

A dedicated Reference Slide must follow the conclusion.
- Fidelity Rule: Include only the sources cited within the presentation.
- Quantity: A minimum of 10 total references is required.
- Quality: At least 8 must be primary research articles.
- Language and Source Exclusion: All sources must be in English. No .com websites or Spanish-language sources are permitted.
7. Rhetorical Performance and Delivery Excellence

Professional presence is established through voice projection and intentional non-verbal cues.

Performance Mastery
- The 2-3 Second Rule: Maintain intentional eye contact. Fix your gaze on an individual for 2–3 seconds before moving to the next. Do not look away even if the examiner appears “embarrassed” or looks down; maintain your asymmetric authority.
- The Millisecond Rule: Never read from your slides. Your audience should be able to “glance in milliseconds” at a slide to grasp the visual support while you provide the sophisticated verbal analysis.
Handling the Q&A: Scope Management

To avoid “rabbit holes,” you must be clear on what your study is not about. Use the following Scope Statement template when faced with out-of-scope questions:

“The purpose of this descriptive study was to [X]; investigating [Y] was beyond the current scope.”

Final Formatting and Alignment Checklist
- Title Alignment: The title of the study must match exactly in three places: the Approval Page, the Title Page, and Page 1 of the document body.
- Table of Contents: Ensure the TOC in the written document matches the final headings used in the presentation.
- Word Count: The final written paper must adhere to the 5,000–6,000 word standard.
- Final Proofing: Run a technical spell-check for typos (e.g., “students” missing the ‘d’) and ensure uppercase/lowercase consistency across all headings.

The Art of Triangulation: Connecting Data to Build Unshakable Arguments

1. The “Why” Behind Triangulation: Beyond Simple Observation

In the realm of qualitative research, the goal is to transcend personal beliefs and subjective opinions, grounding the study in a firm theoretical basis. Triangulation—the strategic use of multiple data sources to cross-verify findings—serves as the primary defense against “rabbit holes.” These are vague, unsubstantiated claims that lead to unanswerable questions or logical dead ends. By viewing the classroom through multiple analytical lenses, the researcher ensures conclusions are supported by a convergence of evidence rather than isolated assumptions.

Central to this process is the distinction between the Problem and the Purpose. The researcher must explicitly define the Problem—the specific gap or tension in the classroom, such as a traditional learning environment feeling “static” or unengaging—versus the Purpose, which is the study’s intentional roadmap for addressing that gap. Without a clearly defined problem, triangulation lacks a focal point; without a purpose, the data collection becomes a directionless exercise.

The “So What?”: A single data point—such as a student looking out a window—is insufficient for explaining complex classroom phenomena. Without triangulation, the researcher might mistakenly assume boredom with the curriculum, whereas a combination of interviews and questionnaires might reveal the cause is the excessive difficulty of a specific task.

The move from theoretical grounding to empirical validity requires the strategic selection of instruments capable of capturing both observable behavior and internal intent.

2. The Four Pillars of Evidence: Instruments and Their Roles

Effective triangulation utilizes four primary instruments, each functioning as a pillar to support the research narrative.

Instrument Type	Primary Function	The “Detail” Factor
Classroom Observations	To capture the “what” of a situation through real-time behavior tracking.	Focus on specific scenarios, such as noting the exact moment a teacher pauses a rap section because the vocabulary appears inaccessible.
Teacher Interviews	To probe the “why” and “how” behind a practitioner’s pedagogical intent.	Prioritize direct quotes and word-for-word transcriptions to ensure the teacher’s authentic voice is preserved.
Student Questionnaires	To gather a group perspective and determine if observed patterns hold across the population.	Emphasize “N” numbers (e.g., Sample size N=34) and percentages to provide statistical weight to qualitative findings.
Documents & Artifacts	To anchor claims in tangible evidence produced during the learning process.	Use authentic samples (e.g., lesson plans, student work, rubrics, feedback logs) and note dates/versions to establish a clear audit trail.

Establishing the tools is merely the prelude; the researcher must then organize their application into a coherent historical account of discovery.

3. The Chronological Path to Discovery: Mapping the Method

Data collection is a historical account. The sequence in which information is gathered is vital for constructing a narrative that remains transparent and logical to external examiners.

Securing Consent: Prior to any empirical activity, participants must provide informed consent. To maintain ethical rigor, the researcher must use pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality of all subjects.
Initial Observations: The researcher begins by gathering the “what.” This involves observing a set of classes (e.g., three consecutive sessions) to identify recurring behaviors without premature intervention.
Interviews and Questionnaires: Findings from initial observations should inform the specific prompts used in interviews and questionnaires. This probes the “why” behind the observed behaviors.
Analysis: The final stage involves the systematic comparison of sources to determine where they align, conflict, or provide supplementary depth.

With the data chronologically secured, the researcher shifts from collection to the high-stakes execution of logical synthesis.

4. Executing the Triangulation: A Logic Case Study

In qualitative research, the “devil is in the details.” Triangulation achieves maximum impact when it focuses on a vivid, specific moment of classroom tension or success.

Observation Finding: During a music-integrated lesson, students are observed looking out the window or resting their heads on their desks. The teacher suddenly stops the “rap section” of the audio activity.
Interview Insight: In a post-lesson interview, the teacher confirms the intent: “I paused the rap section because I realized mid-activity that the vocabulary was too advanced for their current level.”
Questionnaire Data: A follow-up survey indicates that 85% (N=34) of the students found the rap activity “too fast” or “confusing,” providing a statistical verification of both the teacher’s intuition and the researcher’s observation.
Document Analysis: A review of lesson plans, task instructions, and student work samples confirms the vocabulary load and pacing demands of the rap segment (e.g., target word list, transcript complexity, or rubric notes), providing a concrete artifact trail to support the observed breakdown.

This synthesis transforms disparate observations into a singular, unshakeable argument, yet the strength of that argument rests entirely on the precision of the researcher’s presence.

5. Precision Over Generalization: The Qualitative Researcher’s Voice

The researcher’s “voice” is a matter of both descriptive precision and intentional presence. It is essential to avoid “determining” language—claims that imply a causal certainty that cannot be proven (e.g., “they learned better”). Instead, the researcher must employ “descriptive” language (e.g., “they responded more frequently to verbal prompts”). Voice projection in research is not merely about writing style; it is about the intentionality of the presentation and the researcher’s ability to remain the master of the data.

Checklist for Precision and Intentionality

Avoided second-person “you” language: Maintained a formal distance by using “the researcher” or focusing on conceptual ideas.
Avoided rhetorical questions: Instead of asking “Why were the students silent?”, the researcher provided the answer substantiated by the data.
Used third-person perspective: Kept the focus on concepts, avoiding phrases like “I think” or “I believe.”
Used descriptive rather than determining language: Documented what was done rather than making unprovable claims about what occurred internally.
Substantiated every claim: Every finding is linked to a specific data point or a formal citation in the (Author, Year) format.

Once the researcher has mastered their internal voice and descriptive precision, they must finally validate their findings against the broader academic landscape.

6. The Final Connection: Aligning Findings with Theory

The ultimate objective of triangulation is to compare and contrast classroom results with established theoretical frameworks. A rigorous researcher acts as a logical defender of their own conclusions, even when those conclusions diverge from the “experts.” Disagreeing with established theory is acceptable, and often necessary, provided the researcher provides a logical basis and triangulated evidence to support the deviation.

Result from the Classroom	Alignment vs. Contradiction with Theory
Students demonstrated increased autonomy when given Choice-Based reading materials.	Aligns with “Guided Freedom” (Montessori, 2020), suggesting independence fosters holistic development.
The use of repetitive, rote drills resulted in a documented decrease in student participation.	Contradicts the strict “Behaviorist” approach (Skinner, 1957) which posits repetition as the primary driver of learning.

By aligning data with theory, the researcher transforms a simple classroom observation into a contribution to the academic conversation. Every claim must be defended with the same logical rigor used to gather the evidence, ensuring the final argument remains unshakeable.

Mastering the Visual Narrative: A Primer for Impactful Academic Presentations

1. The Core Philosophy: Slides as Guides, Not Scripts

The transition from a written thesis to a professional academic presentation requires a fundamental shift in perspective. An audience cannot simultaneously process dense paragraphs of text and a speaker’s oral analysis. To maintain clarity and engagement, the presenter must adopt the “Slide = One Idea” principle.

Primary Objective: Transform slides from a speaker’s script—a crutch for the presenter—into an audience’s roadmap. The visual aids must reinforce the spoken narrative and strategically guide the listener through the researcher’s logical progression.

The Script Mentality	The Guide Mentality
High Cognitive Load: The audience struggles to read and listen at the same time, leading to distraction.	Low Cognitive Load: The audience glances at a keyword or visual and returns focus to the speaker’s expertise.
Speaker Dependency: The presenter reads from the slide, losing eye contact and authority.	Speaker Authority: The slide supports the speaker’s points; the researcher remains the primary source of information.
Cluttered Narrative: Multiple points on one slide create a “wall of text” that obscures the central message.	Structured Narrative: Point-by-point slides (3–6 per section) lead the audience through a sequence of specific ideas.

By internalizing the role of a guide, the researcher can build a structural foundation that prioritizes clarity, beginning with the opening slides.

2. Building the Foundation: Title and Problem/Purpose Slides

The opening of an academic presentation establishes the professional standard for the defense. It must be minimalist, legible, and free of unnecessary distractions.

The Title Slide: This slide creates the first impression. It must include:
- The Full Title: Use upper and lower case for maximum readability. Avoid all-caps, which are harder to read and can be perceived as “shouting.”
- Identification: Full name and the specific Course or Seminar name.
- The Date: Use the “Month Day, Year” format (e.g., June 8, 2026). Avoid ordinal suffixes like “8th” or “25th.”
- Design Cleanliness: Remove distracting URLs (e.g., “www.real…”) and ensure there is no tiny, illegible text.
The Problem and Purpose Slide: “Less is more” is the mandate for this slide.
- Instead of a paragraph describing the research gap, use two or three keywords (e.g., “Traditional vs. Innovative Environments”).
- Include a single, significant citation to ground the problem in existing literature.
- Verbally explain the purpose in approximately 30 seconds, focusing on the study’s aim to understand the problem or identify solutions.

Once the problem is established, the presenter must ground the study in existing scholarly theory.

3. Mapping the Theory: Visualizing the Literature Review

The theory section should span approximately 8 minutes. Rather than listing authors, the presenter must “tell a story” that establishes the theoretical basis for the results.

Conceptual Headings: Replace generic titles like “Theory” or “Literature Review” with the actual name of the concept (e.g., “Guided Freedom” or “Behaviorist Repetition”).
The “Definition + Example” Formula: Each theory slide should follow a strict content structure:
1. Definition: A concise explanation of the concept.
2. Example: A specific instance from the literature (not personal experience) that illustrates the concept in action.
Citation Requirement: To distinguish between the presenter’s opinion and established theory, at least one citation must appear on every theory slide.

Visual Tools for Mapping Relationships:

Venn Diagrams: Useful for comparing and contrasting two theories or showing overlapping pedagogical ideas.
Flowcharts: Effective for demonstrating cause-and-effect or chronological development.
SmartArt Graphics: High-quality hierarchies or lists that show how concepts connect.
Arrows: To indicate relationships such as how “repeated exposure” leads directly to “skill development.”

A successful literature review transitions from what others have established to the study’s specific aim, bridged by the Research Questions.

4. Visualizing the Method: Order, Precision, and Ethics

Before detailing the procedure, a dedicated slide for the Research Questions must be presented. This serves as the bridge between the theory and the study’s specific methodology. The methodology section itself should be concise—aiming for approximately 2 minutes—to avoid “rabbit holes” and maintain momentum.

Section	Visual Strategy	Key Detail
Participants	A simple table or block.	Use pseudonyms for confidentiality. List specific counts (e.g., 2 teachers, 1 group).
Procedure	A chronological graphic/timeline.	Show the exact order: Observations \rightarrow Interviews \rightarrow Questionnaires.
Instruments	Clear labels and icons.	Label tools precisely, such as observation sheets or consent forms.
Analysis	Brief bullet points.	Mention the intent to triangulate data from multiple sources.

Precision and Limitations: Precision is vital for academic credibility. For example, if a questionnaire was used, the presenter should note the specific response rate (e.g., “34 out of 50 students”). This data point should be used to explicitly identify Research Limitations, such as a non-representative sample size. This clarity sets the stage for the results.

5. The Deep Dive: Results, Discussion, and Triangulation

The results and discussion section is the core of the presentation, requiring 9–10 minutes. Because “the devil is in the details,” the presenter must avoid generalizations in favor of robust, triangulated data.

Triangulation Strategy: True triangulation involves presenting what participants did, said, and felt simultaneously. The slides should combine observational data, quantitative questionnaire results, and qualitative interview quotes.

Voice of the Participant: “The rap section was too difficult because we didn’t have the vocabulary yet.” — Student A, Interview.

Checklist for Presenting Results:

Point-by-Point Headings: Use separate slides for each major finding to maintain the “one idea” focus.
Specific Data Points: Include exact numbers (N=34), percentages from graphs, and specific observations (e.g., “Teacher paused video at 2:00”).
Direct Quotations: Use direct quotes to provide the “human” context of the data.
Theoretical Comparison: Explicitly state if the findings agree or disagree with the theory established earlier. Include a brief citation (e.g., “Aligns with Krashen, 2020”) on these slides to facilitate the comparison.

Once the data is robustly presented, the human element of the performance must carry the narrative to its conclusion.

6. Polishing the Delivery: Design Etiquette and Performance

An academic defense is a professional performance. Design choices and delivery techniques must reflect the presenter’s authority.

Top 4 Delivery Tips:

Eye Contact: Utilize the “3-second fix.” Lock eyes with one individual for 2–3 seconds to ensure a point is understood before moving to another audience member.
Voice Projection: Speak with intention and volume. The examiner must hear the presenter clearly, even from the back of the room.
Third-Person Tone: Maintain academic distance. Focus on “concepts,” “participants,” and “findings” rather than using the second person (“you”).
Avoiding Rhetorical Questions: These often create “dead space” and awkward pauses. The presenter’s job is to provide answers, not pose questions that the audience may feel pressured to answer.

Design Red Flags:

All-Caps Text: Harder to read and creates the impression of “shouting.” Use standard capitalization.
Paragraph Clutter: Avoid full sentences. Paragraphs tempt the presenter to read from the slide, which destroys the flow and eye contact.
Spelling Errors: Typos (e.g., “students” missing the ‘d’) undermine professional credibility. Use spell-check tools.
High Contrast: Ensure text is legible against the background and avoid low-quality, distracting images.

7. Final Checklist for the Aspiring Presenter

Before the final defense, the presenter should verify the deck and submission materials against these standards:

Feedback for Monday

Sofia
- Summary
  
  This research paper examines how flexible lesson planning can effectively support English language learners diagnosed with ADHD. The author advocates for a departure from rigid, sedentary teaching models in favor of movement breaks and active classroom strategies that help neurodiverse students regulate their energy and focus. By utilizing the Universal Design for Learning framework, the study demonstrates how teachers can provide diverse instructional and behavioral supports to meet varied cognitive needs. Findings suggest that implementing consistent routines and positive reinforcement creates a predictable environment that lowers anxiety and boosts academic engagement. Ultimately, the source highlights that flexible teaching methods benefit the entire classroom by fostering an inclusive atmosphere that values physical engagement as a tool for learning. Through observations and interviews in a bilingual primary setting, the research confirms that adaptable strategies significantly improve the participation and performance of students with ADHD.
- RQs
  
  Make sure you clearly state your research questions in your Transitional Paragraph. I did not see them in your first draft.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the back matter in Sofía Torres Quiñones’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the provided file content terminates on page 29 with the placeholder heading for Appendix C, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, all theoretical or academic citations utilized throughout her introduction, literature review, and methodology chapters currently lack their corresponding bibliographic reference entries.
  
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the manuscript does not contain a bibliography or reference list, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Action Items for the Author
  - Missing References Section (Urgent): The manuscript currently has 0 references because the section was cut off or omitted. To meet institutional and graduation requirements, Sofía must compile and insert a formal bibliography containing at least 10 academic references that correspond directly to her text citations.
  - Truncated Appendices (Page 28–29): While the framework maps out the headers for Appendix A (Informed Consent Form) and Appendix B (Classroom Observation Sheet), the actual logging matrices, time stamps, and qualitative data blocks are empty or cut off. Appendix C is entirely missing everything below its heading leaf.
- Presentation Notes
  1. Less text in your text
  2. Include a slide for your problem and purpose.
  3. 1 minute for the theory… shoot for 8-9 minutes for the theory
  4. Method: text too small, but I like to graphic you have to show the process. Consider one that is more specific in your procedure for collecting your data.
  5. Show research questions in a slide before your method.
  6. 2 minutes for the method.}
  7. Break down your results more, showing detailed results in your slides (triangulation) and offer verbally your discussion (interpretation, explanation, etc.)
  8. Include the date and your name once: May 25, 2026, and avoid the ordinal number (”th”).
  9. Conclusion 14:45 left - You’ll need to speak about 9-10 minutes for your results.
  10. Offer more details in how you are triangulating the
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.
2. Make sure the mention and include any instruments you used to collect data, which includes the codebook. Refer to the examples provided in our last whole-group session on May 22, 2026.
3. Review How to format Word for academic paper APA style
4. Thesis statement
5. Begin each body paragraph with ME and conclude with AL. The M.E.A.L. Plan: A Comprehensive Approach to Paragraph Development
6. Missing Transitional Paragraph.
7. Use pseudonyms in participants section.
8. Mention appendices.
9. All headings in results and discussion section should have 6-12 words.
10. Missing a triangulation of results.
Jorge
- Summary
  
  This academic thesis investigates how Montessori-based teaching strategies enhance the learning experiences of students with ADHD in inclusive English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings. The research highlights the effectiveness of sensorial materials, organized environments, and guided freedom in helping neurodiverse children improve their concentration, autonomy, and emotional self-regulation. By shifting the educator’s role from a traditional instructor to a supportive guide, the study demonstrates how hands-on manipulation and individualized pacing reduce cognitive overload and anxiety. The findings suggest that multisensory experiences and self-correcting activities are essential for fostering cognitive-behavioral development and vocabulary retention. Ultimately, the author argues that Montessori principles provide a vital framework for creating inclusive classrooms that respect the unique learning rhythms of every student.
- RQs
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the final reference list in Jorge Armando’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  The following citations appear in the text but are completely missing from the References section (pages 39–40):
```
**Tomlinson (2014)** – Cited twice on page 10.
```
```
**Richards & Rodgers (2014)** – Cited on page 11.
```
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  The following entries are listed in the References section but are never cited anywhere within the body text:
```
**DuPaul, G. J., & Stoner, G. (2014)** – Listed on page 39. Note: The text explicitly cites "(DuPaul & Stoner, 2014)" on pages 11 and 12, which matches this source conceptually, but standardizing the citation format is necessary.
```
```
**Tomlinson, C. A. (2014)** – Listed on page 40. *(This corresponds to the missing citation noted above; it simply needs to be linked through correct formatting).*
```
  Additional Formatting Discrepancies (Template Placeholders)
  
  Similar to errors found in other drafts from this cohort, Jorge has a few critical template placeholder errors on his institutional pages:
```
**The Approval Page (Page 2):** It still contains the generic template title **"English Teachers' Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels"**  instead of his actual thesis title. It also retains the capitalized instructional placeholder **"ADD FULL NAME IN ALL UPPERCASE"** and **"Faculty of Language Department: Add name"**.
```
```
**Table of Contents (Page 6):** The very first heading listed under the page index mistakenly duplicates that same placeholder title: *"English Teachers' Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels... 2"*.
```
- Presentation Notes
  1. Capitalize main words of your title.
  2. Less text in your Problem slide. The amount of text is complicating what it is you want to say. Less text is more.
  3. Avoid, “here I have a quote…” and perhaps mention the quote first, before the problem and purpose slide.
  4. Avoid, “theory 1” and replace with what the theory is.
  5. Less text in your theory. Include citations for each concept or idea coming from an outside source.
  6. Make sure citations included in your slide are specific enough and should offer examples, facts, details, and/or examples.
  7. Create a slide per idea or theory or one slide that pairs or compares theories.
  8. It is not necessary to always mention the source or author.
  9. Consider the question words when preparing on what to say for each slide: what, how, why, when, where, with whom, etc.
  10. They are special… I would avoid this phrase.
  11. Remove the heading, “literature review” and replace it with the concept related to the slide.
  12. avoid reading too much from your slide
  13. Add a slide for your research questions.
  14. Method section (9:10)
  15. I would use “Method” instead of Methodology; use a visual to help organize this section chronologically
  16. Results and Discussion (12:00)
  17. Include results (and citations that refer to the literature in your slides; offer verbally your discussion.
  18. Conclusion (13:00) - Include key points to your conclusion in the slide. (14:00)
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.
2. See video related to ToC and list of figures and tables:
BENJAMIN LEE STEWART: Here is a video I did on how to include figures and tables i…

posted in Thesis Seminar 2026 / General at May 21, 2026 1:26 PM
Abril
- Summary
  
  This study investigates how personality traits and teacher adaptation influence student engagement during English speaking and grammar activities. Utilizing the MBTI framework, the researcher observes how different cognitive profiles, such as introversion and extraversion, affect a learner’s willingness to communicate. The study highlights that personality-aware teaching, which includes emotional accessibility and instructional flexibility, successfully reduces student anxiety and participation hesitation. Findings suggest that while some students thrive through socially expressive interaction, others demonstrate engagement through reflective silence and independent processing. Ultimately, the source argues that moving away from standardized instruction toward personalized learning strategies fosters a more comfortable and productive classroom environment. Furthermore, the research emphasizes that teacher awareness of individual differences is essential for transforming silence into a valid form of cognitive engagement.
- RQs
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference of the text content and the bibliography provided in the References section (pages 31–32) , here is the breakdown of mismatched citations and references.
  
  1. Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  These sources are cited in the body text of the thesis but are completely missing from the References list:
```
**Siru et al., 2025** (Cited on page 8 ).
```
```
> 
  > 
  > 
  > *Note:* The references list contains an entry for **Siru, T., Jinyi, J., & Jinxia, L. (2025)**, but the body text uses *et al.* on page 8 instead of listing the authors or matches a mismatched format. Furthermore, on pages 11, 12, and 14, it is cited as **Siru et al., 2025**.
  >
```
```
**Siri et al., 2025** (Cited on page 8 ). This appears to be a typographical error in the text, likely intending to cite *Siru et al.* * **Arellano, 2025** (Cited on page 10 ) / **Arellano et al., 2025** (Cited on page 12 ).
  
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > *Note:* The reference list entry is for **Arellano, J. M., & Nebria, E. (2025)**. A two-author work should be cited as *Arellano & Nebria (2025)* rather than *Arellano* or *Arellano et al.*
  >
```
  2. References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  These entries are listed in the References bibliography but are never cited anywhere in the provided body text, appendices, or codebooks:
```
**Choudhary, S. (2024).** *Impact of teacher personality traits on classroom management in DIET institutions.*
```
```
**Peng, J. (2024b).** *Willingness to communicate in a second language.*
```
- Presentation Notes
  1. I would review different designs to add a bit of color to your presenatation.
  2. Be careful with asking questions in your presentation. I would limit or avoid rhetorical questions throughout your talk. It’s different than when you are teaching a class.
  3. Add problem/purpose slide?
  4. Create more slides in your literature review with citations and key concepts to support the theoretical concepts you are mentioning.
  5. “dichotomy”?
  6. “My objective is…” say this in the beginning with your problem/purpose slide.
  7. “You already know…” Avoid second person talk for the most point.
  8. Research question (10:15)
  9. Use “Method” instead of “Methodology” (11:30)
  10. Consider putting Participants block to the left and mention this before mentioning instruments and procedure.
  11. Mention data design and analysis.
  12. “They were more engaged…” I would be careful with these types of statements as your study is more descriptive and less about showing more engagement etc.
  13. Offer more detailed results where you triangulate information in your slides (in your results and headings.
  14. Use headings to take the audience from point to point.
  15. Compare and contrast with your literature review (adding citations to your slides)
  16. Conclusion (16:20)
  17. 17:30
  18. Review Word counts: Thesis Seminar Course Guidelines 2026.pdf.
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.
Michelle
- Summary
  
  This research paper by Michelle Estefanía Muñoz Palacios investigates how English language teachers in Mexico strategically use music to improve pronunciation and authentic speaking skills. Through qualitative case studies, the author demonstrates that effective instructors select songs based on specific phonological features, such as connected speech and vowel sounds, rather than using music solely for motivation. The study finds that the rhythmic repetition inherent in songs creates a low-pressure environment that helps students retain sounds and reduces the anxiety often associated with traditional drills. Furthermore, contemporary music serves as a vital bridge to real-world English by exposing learners to informal vocabulary, slang, and colloquial contractions absent from standard textbooks. Ultimately, the source concludes that intentional lesson planning—connecting musical input to structured oral tasks—significantly increases participation and helps students use English more naturally.
- RQs
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the back matter in Michelle Estefanía’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the provided file content ends on page 43 with the subthemes of her qualitative data analysis codebook, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, any theoretical, historical, or empirical citations utilized throughout her chapters to ground the study currently lack their required bibliographic entries.
  
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the manuscript contains no reference list or bibliography section due to where the text terminates, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Institutional & Formatting Discrepancies
  - Institutional Commendation: Unlike many papers in this undergraduate cohort, Michelle successfully updated her title on the Approval Page to match her actual research topic (“Teachers’ Use of Music in English Language Teaching”). She avoided leaking the default generic cohort placeholder title regarding basic and higher educative levels.
  - Examiner Block Left Empty (Page 2): On the official institutional signature sheet, the external examiner validation block still contains the generic template placeholder: “Faculty of Language Department: Add name”.
  - Truncated Appendix Materials: While pages 36 and 37 showcase an excellent, highly structured open-coding scheme regarding musical repetition, sound retention, and anxiety reduction metrics, any additional field matrices, focus group questionnaires, or raw classroom observation transcripts are absent due to the file ending early.
- Presentation Notes
  1. What is the problem exactly? Make sure it is clear in your problem slide. Spend less time on the problem, around 30 seconds.
  2. I like the musical repetition & sound retention slide (graphic), but include citation(s). Include citations for each slide.
  3. Avoid sentences and include key points, images, and figures to help present your theory.
  4. Prepare eight minutes for your theory.
  5. RQs (4:40) - Include a slide for your research questions
  6. Method (5:00) - Try to state more explicitly the order in when you collected the data. Also, mention the research design and data analysis.
  7. R&D (6:00)
  8. Try to pace a little less when speaking.
  9. Teacher paused the rap section because it was too difficult for the students… Can you provide more detailed data to show results related to this?
  10. Include citations to compare and contrast your results with the literature.
  11. Musical input to spoken production slide… review
  12. Conclusion (11:30) - less text in your slide
  13. 12:30
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.
Lizette
- Summary
  
  This study examines effective classroom management strategies for elementary-level English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instructors. Through qualitative research involving classroom observations and interviews, the study highlights how structured routines and a positive learning environment significantly reduce disruptive behaviors. The author advocates for a combination of behaviorist principles, such as clear consequences and time management, and humanistic approaches that prioritize student emotional well-being and mutual respect. Key findings suggest that non-verbal cues, inclusive rule-making, and motivational rewards are more effective for maintaining discipline than shouting or intimidation. Ultimately, the research demonstrates that these pedagogical techniques enhance academic performance by creating a predictable and supportive atmosphere for young language learners.
- RQs
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the final references list in Lizette Guevara Alba’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the file content ends on page 30 with the subthemes of her qualitative codebook, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, all academic citations used throughout the introduction and literature review sections lack a corresponding reference entry.
  
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the document does not contain a bibliography or reference list, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders
  - The Title/Approval Page Template Leak (Page 2): In alignment with formatting errors found across this undergraduate cohort, Lizette has left the institutional template title intact on her official approval sheet. Her Approval Page (Page 2) states that the thesis is titled “English Teachers’ Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels”. This completely contradicts her actual research topic displayed on Page 1: “Teaching Strategies for Managing Discipline in Elementary EFL Classes”.
  - Missing Evaluation Name: On page 2, the signature line for the external evaluator still retains the generic placeholder “Faculty of Language Department: Add name”.
  - Incorrect Page Numbering on Institutional Leaves: The page numbers are misaligned at the start of the document. The Approval Page is numbered as page ii, but the Abstract immediately following it is numbered as page 1, disrupting standard thesis pagination style.
- Presentation Notes
  1. Less text in your problem and purpose slide.
  2. Good headings, but some tend to be too long; less text
  3. It is not necessary to mention the authors; just have the citations in your slides.
  4. Try to read less from your slides and look for opportunities to compare and contrast, synthesize, show cause and consequences, etc. Mind SmartArt in PowerPoint to help you show visually certain relationships between your theory.
  5. Because the headings are rather long, it is hard to follow your points.
  6. RQs (4:40) - It is not necessary to mention the problem again.
  7. Consider a visual to show procedure.
  8. R&D (7:00)
  9. Compare and contrast slide… offer a visual of this representation.
  10. The more detail you can provide in each slide, the better.
  11. Perhaps tables can be used to show comparisons between teachers.
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.

Feedback for Tuesday

Abel
- Summary
  
  This academic study by Jose Abel Diaz De Leon Valderrama examines how Game-Based Learning (GBL) improves English language acquisition for secondary students in Mexican public schools. The research specifically highlights how interactive play reduces cognitive load and anxiety by providing multimodal support, such as visual and auditory clues, which help students process listening tasks more effectively. Findings indicate that GBL fosters incidental vocabulary acquisition, as students naturally learn and retain words needed to achieve specific game objectives. Additionally, the text emphasizes the concept of “elegant failure,” an environment where making mistakes becomes a low-stress, iterative part of the learning process rather than a source of embarrassment. The author concludes that while digital tools like Baamboozle are effective, teachers can successfully implement these pedagogical principles in low-tech environments using simple classroom games. Ultimately, the study suggests that the scaffolding provided by games builds long-term student confidence and shifts motivation from short-term excitement to sustainable academic interest.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the final reference list in José Abel’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  The following citations appear in the text but are completely missing from the References section on page 30:
```
**Vandergrift (1977)** – Cited on page 7.
```
  - Rajendran et al. (2025) / Rajendran (2025) – Cited on page 8 , page 11 , page 14 , and page 16.
```
**Sugianto (2023) / Sugianto's (2023)** – Cited on page 8 , page 9 , page 11 , page 13 , page 14 , page 15 , and page 17.
```
```
**Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999)** – Cited on page 15.
```
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  The following entries are listed in the References section but are never cited anywhere within the body text:
```
**Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Ten Dam, G. (2011)** – Listed on page 30.
```
```
**Field, J. (2008)** – Listed on page 30.
```
  Additional Critical Discrepancies
```
**The Title/Approval Page Template Leak:** Just like several other students in this cohort, José Abel forgot to remove the generic template placeholder title on page 2 and page 4. His official **Approval Page** states his thesis is titled *"English Teachers' Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels"* , completely contradicting his actual title on page 1, which is *"Enhancing Student Motivation Through Game-Based Learning in English Courses"*.
```
```
**Citation/Reference Spelling Mismatch:** On page 13, the text cites **Deci and Ryan (2000)** , but the corresponding entry in the reference list on page 30 is spelled **Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000)**. While the source is clearly the same, standardizing parenthetical names to match the reference entry is required.
```
```
**Incomplete Appendix/Data Layout:** On page 23, the text instructs the reader to "see Appendix E" to view student questionnaire data regarding teacher motivation. However, page 36 shows that **Appendix E** is actually the qualitative **Codebook**, not the questionnaire data sheets. The survey results are actually displayed in text tables on pages 28 and 29.
```
- Presentation Notes
  1. It should take you about 30 seconds to get to your literature review.
  2. You should know by heart top-down and bottom-up strategies.
  3. Scaffolding and elegant failure slide?
  4. Avoid reading from strings of text.
  5. Avoiding saying, “Sorry…” when you get stuck. Just pause, collect your thoughts, and continue.
  6. RQ (7:20) - perhaps remove the asterisks
  7. Method (8:20)
  8. Consider a visual in your method slide that shows the procedure you followed to collect your data. Also, you have “final questionnaire” twice.
  9. Results and Discussion (9:00)
  10. Practice presenting results first (in your slides), then offer verbally your discussion.
  11. Remember to compare your results and discussion with your theory (with citations).
  12. Conclusion (13:50) - Include key words in your conclusion slide.
  13. 14:40
1. Missing references.
2. Paragraphs underdeveloped… should be 140-180 words, 5-8 sentences.
3. No mention of appendices in method section.
4. Missing Introduction Paragraph.
5. Transitional Paragraph incomplete.
6. Body paragraphs lack topic sentences in results and discussion section.
7. Paraphrase citations using parenthetical citations in your theory. Parenthetical Vs. Narrative Citations.
8. Make sure to begin each body paragraph with M.E. and conclude each with A.L. in your theory and results and discussion sections: The M.E.A.L. Plan: A Comprehensive Approach to Paragraph Development.
9. Check your margins (use Normal)
Fany
- Summary
  
  In this academic thesis, Michelle Stephanie García Molina examines how personalized instruction and authentic materials foster a positive classroom environment for English language learners. By triangulating data from class observations, student surveys, and teacher interviews, the research demonstrates that integrating students’ interests and emotions significantly boosts their motivation and self-confidence. The study highlights that using popular culture and interactive media makes lessons more relatable, helping students retain information more effectively. Ultimately, the author concludes that supportive teaching behaviors, such as providing verbal encouragement and respecting individual needs, are essential for creating meaningful learning experiences. Teachers who prioritize a comfortable and inclusive atmosphere see a direct improvement in student engagement and academic performance.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the back matter in Michelle Stephanie García Molina’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the provided file content terminates on page 34 with the categories of her qualitative analysis codebook, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, all academic and theoretical citations used throughout her introduction and literature review chapters currently lack their corresponding bibliographic entries.
  
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the manuscript does not contain a bibliography or reference list, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders
  - The Approval Page Template Leak (Page 2): In alignment with recurring formatting errors found across this undergraduate cohort, Michelle Stephanie has left an incomplete placeholder title intact on her official approval sheet. Her Approval Page (Page 2) lists the manuscript title as the incomplete string “Title fff”. This directly contradicts her actual comprehensive research topic displayed on Page 1: “How Teachers Promote A Positive Classroom Environment And Personalize Material To Create A Meaningful Learning Experience”.
  - Examiner Line Left Empty (Page 2): On the official institutional signature block, the external reviewer line still retains the cohort template placeholder: “Faculty of Language Department: Add name Date”.
  - Truncated Appendix Materials: While pages 31–34 successfully showcase her semi-structured interview protocol and the initial open-coding scheme for a positive classroom atmosphere, any additional data sheets—such as the raw student questionnaires, classroom observation tally marks, or percentage tables reflecting student emotions—are missing due to the early termination of the file.
- Presentation Notes
  1. I would add the date to your title slide.
  2. Replace “problem statement” with key words and concepts related to the problem along with the citation. Try to limit this slide to around 30 seconds.
  3. Include citations for each concept in your literature review slides. Less text and include more key words and/or images, graphics, tables, etc.
  4. I would include a heading for each slide.
  5. Remember that your literature review is more about what others say and their findings than it is about your own views or opinions.
  6. Prain and Cox slide
  7. RQs (4:30)
  8. Try to project your voice a bit more.
  9. 12-13 classes observed… be specific.
  10. Describe the instruments used… and include your data analysis.
  11. results and discussion (6:30)
  12. Questionnaire table: Include statistics or a graph to show the results.
  13. “Some of them answered…” Be more specific. How many students completed the questionnaire (N=?).
  14. Include more direct quotes from participants. For example, a direct quote to support the “Reagent” slide.
  15. Conclusion slide (11:40) - include
  16. 12:10
1. Missing Introduction Paragraph: hook, context of the problem (with at least one citation), and Thesis statement).
Melissa
- Summary
  
  This research paper by Melissa Ortiz Castro investigates how multisensory teaching strategies improve English language acquisition for dyslexic students in primary education. By utilizing visual, auditory, and tactile tools, educators can move beyond traditional paper-and-pencil methods to better support reading and spelling development. The study highlights specific techniques such as sand writing, air writing, and color-coded text trackers to reduce visual stress and build muscle memory. These adaptations not only help students overcome phonetic challenges but also increase self-confidence and foster an inclusive classroom environment. Ultimately, the source argues that engaging multiple senses allows learners to create stronger cognitive connections and achieve greater independence. This comprehensive overview provides both theoretical frameworks and practical classroom applications for supporting diverse learning needs.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the back matter in Melissa Ortiz Castro’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the provided file content ends on page 29 with the categories of her qualitative data analysis codebook, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, all academic or theoretical citations used throughout the introduction and literature review currently lack their corresponding reference entries.
  
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the manuscript does not include a reference list or bibliography, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders
  - The Title/Approval Page Template Leak (Page 2): In alignment with recurring errors found across this undergraduate cohort, Melissa has left the institutional template title intact on her official approval sheet. Her Approval Page (Page 2) states that the thesis is titled “English Teachers’ Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels”. This completely contradicts her actual research topic displayed on Page 1: “How to Teach English to Dyslexic Students through Multisensory Materials”.
  - Institutional Placeholders Left Unchanged (Page 2): On the official Approval Page, the capitalized placeholder “ADD FULL NAME IN ALL UPPERCASE” has not been replaced with the author’s actual name. Additionally, the external examiner block still retains the generic text “Faculty of Language Department: Add name”.
  - Truncated Appendix Materials: While pages 26–29 map out a detailed structural codebook addressing multisensory adaptations (such as tactile, visual, and auditory scaffolding for dyslexic learners), the actual practical appendices—such as raw classroom observation logs, diagnostic checklists, or student interview scripts—are missing due to the early termination of the file.
- Presentation Notes
  1. Problem/purpose slide - less text and increase text size.
  2. Riordan - what does this person say about the problem?
  3. Avoid saying, “For the first theory…”
  4. Overall, less text in each slide and include citations in each slide when presenting your theory.
  5. RQs (3:45)
  6. I would simplify method slide with key points you need (instead of writing out sentences).
  7. I would create a table in your method slide(s) to show their reading, etc. allotments or schedule.
  8. results and discussion (7:00)
  9. Make sure you include citations to compare your results with the literature (like to did in your thesis paper).
  10. Conclusion (12:30) - Include your own original points and add them to your slide.
  11. Use pseudonyms and present findings in a way to compares the two.
  12. 14:00
1. Add citation to support the problem you discuss in the introduction paragraph and include the same citation when mentioning the problem in your problem/purpose slide of your presentation.
Alondra
- Summary
  
  This research paper examines how Project-Based Learning (PBL) and collaborative teamwork help fifth-grade students improve their English speaking abilities. By observing a public elementary school, the author found that students use communicative strategies—such as gestures, paraphrasing, and fillers—to maintain fluency when they lack specific vocabulary. The study highlights that working in groups creates a supportive environment that significantly reduces speaking anxiety and fear of making mistakes. Results indicate that peer encouragement and the negotiation of meaning allow even shy students to gain the confidence needed for oral interaction. Ultimately, the source argues that PBL is an effective methodology for fostering real-world communication skills in foreign language learners.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a thorough cross-examination of the citation markings within the body text and appendices against the bibliography provided in the References section (pages 26–27) , here is the list of unmatched citations and references found in Alondra Michelle Torres Hernandez’s thesis document.
  
  1. Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  These sources are cited dynamically within the text but are entirely missing from the final bibliography:
```
**Vygotsky, 1978** (Cited on page 11).
```
```
**Lave & Wenger, 1991** (Cited on page 12).
```
```
- 
      
      *Note:* The references list contains an entry for **Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991)**, but it is listed under the translated Spanish title (*"Aprendizaje situado: Participación periférica legítima"*). In academic formatting, if the English version is cited in-text, it should match the bibliographic entry.
```
```
**Benoit, 2020** (Cited on page 7).
  
  - *Note:* This is a formatting mismatch. The bibliography contains the full entry as **Benoit Ríos, C. G. (2020)**. The in-text citation should use the author's first maternal surname (*Benoit Ríos*) to align correctly.
```
  2. References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  These academic works are explicitly detailed in the References section but are never cited or mapped anywhere in the text, codebook, or appendices:
```
**Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980).** *Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.*
```
```
**García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso, A., & Basilotta Gómez-Pablos, V. (2017).** *Aprendizaje basado en proyectos (ABP): evaluación desde la perspectiva de alumnos de educación primaria.*
```
```
**Tarone, E. (1977).** *Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report.*
```
- Presentation Notes
  1. I would use upper and lowercase lettering in your title slide.
  2. Less text in your problem and purpose slide.
  3. Replace the heading “theory” with the main point is for each slide.
  4. Make sure not to next citations to certain parts of the text, excluding the rest of the text.
  5. RQs (4:14)
  6. Avoid repeating your study when referring to the slide.
  7. Method section - Good!
  8. Results and discussion (6:15)
  9. Triangulate your results by present them in your slides.
  10. Show visually your comparison between the two groups.
  11. Include direct quotes… it is not you saying what you remember they said.
  12. Break down results into separate ideas, one slide per idea.
  13. You say, “This is what the results mean…” after presenting a lot of results. Break down your results and discussion into small parts.
  14. Conclusion (10:20)
  15. 10:50
1. It is not necessary to mention citations when presenting your theory.
2. RQs (3:35)
3. Method (4:15) - instead of “Methodology”
4. Perhaps include the pseudonym in your method section.
5. Results and discussion (5:30)
6. Present results before you present a discussion
7. Mentions, “special needs”
8. Conclusion (10:10)
9. 11:00
Belen
- Summary
  
  This research study by Belén Betzabé López Rivera examines how Total Physical Response (TPR) and game-based activities foster English speaking skills among kindergarteners in Mexico. The findings suggest that integrating physical movement with Project-Based Learning helps young children bridge the gap between understanding a language and actually speaking it. By using rhythmic routines, didactic materials, and positive reinforcement, teachers can effectively reduce student anxiety and increase engagement. The text emphasizes that while active play enhances vocabulary retention, it requires structured facilitation to manage classroom energy and maintain focus on learning goals. Ultimately, the source highlights that a collaborative environment—where children move from following commands to leading them—creates a natural and supportive path for early language acquisition.
- RQs
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a detailed analysis comparing the in-text citations throughout the body text and appendices against the bibliography in the References section (page 23) , here is the list of unmatched items for Belén Betzabé López Rivera’s thesis:
  
  1. Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  These entries are cited within the text or explicitly outlined as core theoretical codes in the codebook but are missing from the final bibliography:
```
**Vygotsky** / **VYG-SOC** (Cited on page 11 as a theoretical foundation: *"Language works like the main tool for this social process... Vygotsky, 1978"* and utilized in the Theme 3 codebook framework as `-VYG-SOC` ).
```
  - Oktaviani et al., 2023 (Cited on page 10).
    - Note: While a matching entry for Oktaviani, H. I. et al. (2023) exists in the Reference list , the text citation string on page 10 contains a typographical spacing error (“Oktaviani et., al 2023” ), which disrupts a clean academic format match.
  2. References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  There are no floating or completely un-cited entries in the bibliography. Every reference listed on page 23 (Donasco & Vertulfo, 2024 ; Mariyam & Musfiroh, 2019 ; Parwoto et al., 2024 ; Saleh & Althaqafi, 2022 ) corresponds to an active discussion string within the thesis text chapters.
- Presentation Notes

Feedback for Wednesday

Francisco
- Summary
  
  This research paper examines how English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers utilize contemporary popular music to enhance the listening and speaking skills of young learners. By applying the Affective Filter Hypothesis, the study demonstrates that music serves as a vital tool for emotional regulation, transforming classroom anxiety into a secure environment for oral production. The author argues that integrating modern songs provides meaningful language input and authentic rhythmic patterns that help students internalize vocabulary and pronunciation more naturally. Through qualitative classroom observations, the text details how musical activities like “warm-ups” and “verb hunts” increase student engagement and confidence. Ultimately, the source concludes that music is a powerful pedagogical strategy that transitions students from hesitant observers to active, fluent communicators.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a review of the provided document for José Francisco Castellanos Obregón, here is the cross-reference check between the citations used in the text and the final References list:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  The following citation appears in the body text but is completely missing from the References section on page 24:
```
**Krashen (1988)** – Cited on page 6. While the student writes *"Krashen, 1988, as cited in Du, 2009,"*  secondary citations should ideally include both sources in the references if available, or be formatted strictly according to APA 7th edition rules depending on institutional preferences. If Krashen is meant to be a standalone primary foundation as stated in the abstract, the primary source is missing.
```
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  The following entries are listed in the References section on page 24 but are never explicitly cited anywhere within the body text:
```
**Barker, K. (2024)** – Listed on page 24. (Note: The text mentions an author named "Barker, 2024" on page 10 , but it is spelled as **Barker (2024)** in text and **Barker, K. (2024)**  in the back. While they correspond, see the spelling note below for a major related issue).
```
  Critical Institutional & Formatting Discrepancies
  - The Approval Page Template Leak (Page 2 & Page 4): Just like several other drafts in this undergraduate cohort, José Francisco forgot to remove the template placeholder text. On his official Approval Page (Page 2) and Table of Contents (Page 4) , his thesis is mistakenly titled “English Teachers’ Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels”. This completely contradicts his actual title on Page 1: “How do English teachers of the English Foreign Language use Music as a teaching tool…”.
```
**Examiner Placeholder:** On page 2, the placeholder text **"Faculty of Language Department: Add name"** is still present.
```
  - Severe Spelling Mismatches (Name Distortion): There is a recurring typo where the name of the prominent music-in-ELT researcher Tim Murphey is misspelled. On page 3 and page 11 , the text cites Murphey (1992) , and the reference list on page 24 correctly lists Murphey, T. (1992). However, on page 10, the text suddenly introduces a completely different spelling: “Barker (2024)”. Looking at the codebook, it becomes clear that this section is discussing Murphey’s concepts, but a copy-paste or tracking error has distorted the author’s name in that specific paragraph.
```
**Incomplete Appendix Layout:** On page 14, the text points the reader to **Appendix C** to see how data was grouped into recurring themes. While Appendix C on page 28 contains the **Codebook**, the structural tables or data matrices tracking student emotional shifts are completely blank or missing formatting.
```
- Presentation Notes
  1. Check spelling in title slide.
  2. Consider a powerpoint design with a bit more color
  3. It is not necessary to mention your tutor.
  4. Your title on your slides is different from what you have on your thesis paper.
  5. Problem/purpose: less text..
  6. Missing introduction paragraph with citation supporting the problem (e.g., Du, 2009)
  7. Limit greeting and problem/purpose to 30 seconds… it took you two minutes
  8. Not necessary to say, “this is my literature review…”
  9. Less text in your slides (theory)… good use of headings.
  10. Avoid saying, “Sorry…” when you get stuck. Pause, collect your thoughts, and continue.
  11. It is not necessary to mention your citations… just include them in your slides as you are doing.
  12. Consider visuals, images, etc. in your theory (slides).
  13. RQs (4:40)
  14. Method (5:18) - only include what you need in your slides to method method. Check terms, “confidentiality” and “anonymity”.
  15. Avoid including any data or instruments in your slide presentation.
  16. Results and Discussion (7:37)
  17. Begin with a slide with a heading representing your first point (Results and Discussion slide not needed).
  18. Present results in your slide and present discussion verbally.
  19. What kind of questions did the teacher ask? Provide more detail when presenting results in your slides.
  20. What makes popular music meaningful to Gen Z?
  21. Include visuals (figures and tables) in both your thesis paper and presentation.
  22. Practice presenting results (triangulating your data) before you present your discussion.
  23. Connect results with your theory (citations)
  24. Conclusion (15:30) - less text; key terms only
  25. 16:30
1. Follow the MEAL plan in your theory and results and discussion. The M.E.A.L. Plan: A Comprehensive Approach to Paragraph Development
Karol
- Summary
  
  This research paper by Karol Daniela Esqueda Soto explores how peer tutoring can enhance the speaking skills and learner autonomy of high school students in a Mexican EFL setting. By implementing structured learning plans and visual conversation guides, educators provide a scaffolded environment that reduces student anxiety and encourages collaborative feedback. Data collected through observations and interviews indicate that when students act as tutors, they effectively assist one another with pronunciation, vocabulary, and self-correction. The study highlights that decentralized, student-led interactions allow for more individualized support than traditional teacher-centered models, especially in large classrooms. Ultimately, the findings suggest that fostering social connections and emotional security through peer support leads to measurable improvements in oral fluency and academic independence.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the final references list in Karol Esqueda’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  The following citations appear in the text but are missing from the References section on page 24:
  - Saito (2024) – Cited on page 9.
  - Tuan & Mai (2015) – Cited on page 10.
  - Nunan (2015) – Cited on page 10.
  - Goh & Burns (2012) – Cited on page 11.
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  The following entries are listed in the References section but are never cited anywhere within the body text:
  - There are no unreferenced sources. Every entry listed in the reference list on page 24 is cited at least once in the literature review or discussion sections (Boonkit, 2010; Brown, 2001; Burns, 2019; Thornbury, 2005).
  Critical Institutional & Formatting Discrepancies
  - The Approval Page Template Leak (Page 2 & Page 4): Just like other drafts in this undergraduate cohort, Karol has left the generic template placeholder title intact on her official institutional pages. Her Approval Page (Page 2) and Table of Contents (Page 4) state her thesis is titled “English Teachers’ Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels”. This completely contradicts her actual title on Page 1: “The Impact of Task-Based Language Teaching on the Development of Speaking Skills in Young EFL Learners”.
  - Incomplete Formatting on Institutional Pages: On page 2, the capitalized instructional placeholder “ADD FULL NAME IN ALL UPPERCASE” was left unchanged instead of inserting her name, and the examiner line still reads “Faculty of Language Department: Add name”.
  - Missing Appendix Content: Page 4 lists Appendix A (Informed Consent Form), Appendix B (Classroom Observation Sheet), and Appendix C (Codebook) in the Table of Contents. However, the document cuts off entirely after page 24, meaning the actual appendices and the codebook text are missing from the file.
- Presentation Notes
  1. Use upper and lowercase in title slide
  2. Get right to the problem and purpose - less text - 30 seconds to greet your audience and state the problem and purpose of your study. Mention Bensen (2011) for example.
  3. Add headings for each slide in your theory.
  4. Research questions go after you present your theory; remove “researchable problem”
  5. Create slides in your theory that complements what you are saying.
  6. Read less when presenting your theory.
  7. Create headings related to diagnostic strategies, personalized learning plans, individualized plans, self regulation, peer autonomy
  8. Method (5:53) - follow instructions I mention in today’s session.
  9. Maintain better eye contact.
  10. Show more detailed results (through triangulation) in your slides and offer verbally your discussion. Triangulating Qualitative Data
  11. You say, “Students felt nervous…” Based on what results? Show these results by triangulating information.
  12. Conclusion (8.45) - less text.
  13. 9:19
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.
Layza
- Summary
  
  This academic study examines how Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) serves as an essential instructional co-planner for English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers in Mexican primary schools. The researcher argues that traditional textbooks often fail to engage students, whereas Gen-AI enables the creation of localized, culturally relevant materials that align with the Nueva Escuela Mexicana framework. By utilizing these digital tools, educators can provide multi-level scaffolding for mixed-proficiency classes and specialized visual support for neurodivergent learners, which helps lower language anxiety. The text highlights how automating material design allows teachers to shift from passive instruction toward active, gamified, and student-centered classroom dynamics. Ultimately, the integration of technology is presented as an extension of pedagogical empathy, fostering a more inclusive environment that prioritizes meaningful human interaction over rigid curriculum standards. This approach effectively transforms potential behavioral challenges into opportunities for collaborative communication and increased student autonomy.
- RQs
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the final references list in Layza Eleana’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the file content ends abruptly on page 27 with the conceptual layout of the pedagogical framework, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, all academic citations used to build the literature review and framework lack a corresponding reference entry.
  
  The primary citations in the text that will require complete bibliographic entries once the section is added include:
  - Krashen (1982) – Mentioned as a foundational framework in the abstract and body text.
  - Any other specific curricular, pedagogical, or Gen-AI methodological sources referenced throughout her study’s chapters.
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the document completely cuts off after page 27 and contains no reference list, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders
  - The Approval Page Template Leak (Page 2): In alignment with errors found across this undergraduate cohort, Layza has left the institutional template title intact on her official approval sheet. Her Approval Page (Page 2) states her thesis is titled “English Teachers’ Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels”. This directly contradicts her actual research topic on Page 1: “Implementation of Gen-AI in Pedagogical Material and Lesson Planning”.
  - Missing Evaluation/Signature Details: On page 2, the placeholder line for the external reviewer still reads “Faculty of Language Department: Add name”.
  - Missing Appendices: Although pages 26 and 27 outline headings for Gen-AI co-planning frameworks and application strategies, the actual practical materials, prompt sequences, observation sheets, or student interview guides are absent due to the early termination of the file.
- Presentation Notes
  1. Add the date to your title slide.
  2. Remove table to contents slide.
  3. Combine problem and purpose to one slide… get to literature review in 30 seconds.
  4. 1:50 to get to the theory… Avoid, “We will break down the theory into sections…”
  5. Remove “Literature Review”, etc. headings. Stick to the key points.
  6. Less text in your theory and include key words, images, figures, SmartArt, etc.
  7. Do you mention workload in your thesis paper?
  8. New program (PRONI)?
  9. Avoid saying, “From my observation…” in the theory.
  10. RQs (7:30)
  11. Less text in your method slide… replace “research methodology”?
  12. Results and Discussion (9:30)
  13. Create headings for each slide based on the key point.
  14. Stay focused… do not get distracted.
  15. Is the table presenting data from your study? Levels I, II, and III.
  16. Do you mention something about neurodivergency in your theory?
  17. Compare and contrast more the two groups you included in your study.
  18. Include your future outlook in your conclusion slide
  19. Add a conclusion slide (18:30)
  20. 18:40
1. All references should be in English
2. Each body paragraph in the theory and results and discussion sections should following the MEAL plan: begin each body paragraph with M.E. and conclude each body paragraph with A.L. The M.E.A.L. Plan: A Comprehensive Approach to Paragraph Development
3. Avoid words like “very”, “important”, etc. See Why avoid “very”? and (In)Appropriate language when writing an academic text.
4. Conclude theory with a Transitional Paragraph. The method section goes right below the transitional paragraph.
5. Introduction Paragraph goes just below the title on page 1.
6. Add visuals and citations to your results and discussion section.
Jessika
- Summary
  
  This research paper by Jessika Guadalupe Ramirez Lara investigates how collaborative learning can effectively address disruptive behavior in primary English as a Foreign Language classrooms. By implementing structured listening and speaking activities, such as pair work, games, and role plays, educators can significantly boost student engagement and motivation. The study emphasizes that active teacher monitoring and guidance are essential to ensure students remain focused on their tasks. Findings suggest that moving away from traditional, teacher-centered instruction toward interactive communication creates a more positive and orderly learning environment. Ultimately, the source concludes that fostering teamwork helps reduce classroom distractions while simultaneously improving students’ language proficiency.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a thorough cross-examination of the provided text and its final reference list, several discrepancies have been identified.
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  The following citations appear in the body text of the document but are completely missing from the References section on page 26:
  - Sari (2023) / Sari N. * Where it appears: Page 5 ("If students are not engaged... disruptive behavior is more likely to appear in the classroom" by Sari N.), page 6 (Sari, 2023), page 7 (Sari, 2023), and page 10 (Sari, 2023).
    - The issue: The reference list on page 26 contains an entry for Sari, N. P. (2023). While the initials closely match, the text alternates between calling this source “Sari N.” and “Sari, 2023”. If they are intended to be the same person, the parenthetical citations should be standardized to (Sari, 2023) to accurately match the primary last name of the reference entry.
  - Ortiz (2005)
    - Where it appears: Page 9 (Ortiz, 2005).
    - The issue: The only entry in the reference list is for Ortiz, M. (2025). If this is a single study, there is a massive 20-year chronological discrepancy between the citation and the reference entry. If they are two different studies by an author named Ortiz, the 2005 paper is missing entirely.
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  The following entries are listed in the References section on page 26 but are never cited or explicitly credited anywhere within the body text:
  - Bonilla, B. S., & Quinde, J. D. (2025)
    - Note: There is a citation on page 8 to (Bonilla & Quinde, 2025). However, looking closely at the reference list entries for Bonilla & Quinde (2025) and Cedeño (2025), they both share the exact same DSpace repository URL (https://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/items/419c77ce-01ed-45f3-a575-8aa21b40f1b2). This suggests a copy-paste error in the references metadata.
  Title and Content Discrepancies (Bonus Alert)
  
  While checking your data, a major structural discrepancy was found on Page 2 (The Approval Page):
  - The title listed on the Title Page (Page 1) is: “Disruptive behavior in EFL classrooms: challenges and teaching strategies used by English teachers”.
  - The title listed on the Approval Page (Page 2) and Table of Contents (Page 4) is: “English Teachers’ Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels”.
  Teacher Trainer Tip: This looks like a classic case of forgetting to update the template placeholder on the official approval sheet! Make sure your student changes Page 2 to match their actual thesis topic before submission.
  
  Would you like me to help draft a quick feedback checklist you can hand directly to Jessika to fix these up?
- Presentation Notes
  1. Add date to your title page; use upper and lowercase lettering.
  2. Problem slide - less text and less time.
  3. Avoid mentioning participants until your method section
  4. Break down ideas into separate slides with headings for each.
  5. Avoid say, “in the literature review”, show more information in separate slides.
  6. Listen examples of (collarative) strategies in your theory.
  7. RQs (6:00)
  8. Include visual to show procedure and try to limit method slide to one.
  9. Classroom observations are not instruments. Observation guides are instruments.
  10. Try to limit method to one-to-two slides.
  11. Results (9:00)
  12. Include more detail results (through triangulation) in your slides and you offer verbally your discussion.
  13. What are “collaborative listening/speaking strategies”?
  14. Students mention that…? How did you mention this? Focus group, interview, questionnaire?
  15. Review Results and Discussion slide (Collaborative listening and speaking”
  16. Remove words like “better”, “improve”, etc.
  17. Conclusion (14:30) - less text in your slide
  18. 15:30
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.
Mauricio
- Summary
  
  This academic paper explores how contextualized learning can combat student demotivation in English language acquisition, specifically regarding speaking skills and vocabulary. The author argues that utilizing role plays helps students overcome anxiety and nervousness by allowing them to practice language in relatable, real-world scenarios. Additionally, the text highlights the effectiveness of realia—physical or digital objects—to create sensory connections that make learning new words more meaningful and engaging. The study emphasizes that teachers must adapt these interactive strategies to accommodate diverse learner demographics, such as significant age gaps within a single classroom. By aligning classroom activities with personal interests and practical needs, educators can foster a supportive environment that enhances participation. Ultimately, the research suggests that bridging the gap between school and the real world through authentic materials is essential for maintaining long-term student interest.
- RQs
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the back matter in Mauricio Rosales León’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the provided file content ends on page 30 with his qualitative data codebook categories, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, any theoretical or empirical citations used to frame the introduction and literature review currently lack their required bibliographic reference entries.
  
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the document does not include a reference list or bibliography, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Institutional & Formatting Discrepancies
  - Examiner Line Left Blank (Page 2): On the official institutional Approval Page, the examiner signature block still contains the template instructional placeholder: “Faculty of Language Department: Add name”.
  - Institutional Leave Contrast: On a positive note, Mauricio is one of the few students in this cohort who correctly updated his thesis title on the Approval Page. It properly matches his actual research topic (“How do English teachers motivate students at speaking in English and learning vocabulary by using role plays and realia…”) instead of leaking the standard placeholder title regarding basic and higher education levels.
  - Incomplete Appendix Materials: While pages 28–30 display the structural headers for his qualitative analysis matrices, the actual practical evidence (such as the classroom observation sheets or data summaries tracking student performance shifts) is blank or truncated due to the file ending early.
- Presentation Notes
  1. Add a citation to support your problem (slide)
  2. Break down your ideas into separate (more) slides. Mix with images, graphics, tables, SmartArt, etc.; remove “THEORY” header. Instead, create a heading for each slide.
  3. Not necessary to repeat the problem (slide)
  4. Method (5:00)
  5. I like to graphic you have in the method, but include the procedure only using the graphic you have.
  6. Avoid mentioning the name of the school
  7. Results and Discussion (7:30)
  8. Get right to the results (triangulation)
  9. 11:50
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.

Feedback for Thursday

Evelyn
- Summary
  
  This research paper by Evelyn Elizabeth Nieves Torres investigates how gamification effectively reduces student anxiety and enhances oral participation in English language lessons. By analyzing classroom observations and student surveys, the study explores how game-like elements—such as points, leaderboards, and collaborative challenges—lower the “affective filter” that often prevents learners from speaking due to a fear of failure. The author highlights that these strategies transform mistakes into valuable learning opportunities, encouraging spontaneous dialogue and peer interaction. Additionally, the text emphasizes the teacher’s essential role in designing and facilitating these activities to balance challenge with skill. Ultimately, the findings suggest that a gamified environment fosters critical thinking and boosts learner confidence by making language acquisition a more engaging, social experience.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a review of the provided document, here is the cross-reference check between the citations used in the text and the final References list:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  The following citations appear in the body text of the document but are completely missing from the References section on page 25:
```
**Montoya (2021)** – Cited on page 7. While there is a partial URL entry for a *Montoya, J. A. (2021)* on page 25, the reference entry itself is incomplete, broken, and lacks the publisher, city, or journal details necessary to constitute a complete academic reference.
```
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  The following entries are listed in the References section but are never cited anywhere in the body text:
  - There are no unreferenced sources. Every complete or partial reference listed on page 25 corresponds to an author mentioned in the text (Bartle, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Ghoulam & Bouikhalene, 2024; Long, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Saggah et al., 2018; Tenorio, 2020; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
  Additional Formatting/Citation Notes
```
**Minor Spelling Discrepancy:** The citation in the text on page 12 is spelled **Ryan & Decci (2000)** , but the correct spelling in the reference list is **Ryan & Deci (2000)**.
```
```
**Incomplete Reference Formatting:** The entry for **Long, M. H. (1980)** on page 25  is incomplete; it cuts off after the title (*Input, interaction, and second language Acquisition*) and lacks publication data.
```
- Presentation Notes
  1. Make sure the title of your talk is the exact same as what you have (3 times) in your thesis paper.
  2. Consider more information in title slide: date, the university, subject, etc.
  3. Make sure you arrive 30 minutes before you are scheduled to present.
  4. Include citations in each of your slides when presenting your theory.
  5. Try to include more visuals and make sure you go in order based on what you have in your slides. For example, today you talked about player archetypes before discussing the teacher’s role.
  6. Check your spacing and capitalization throughout the slides.
  7. Include specific headings that represents the key point of each slide.
  8. It is not necessary to mention the source (author) when you are speaking because the citation should already appear in the slide.
  9. Try to maintain better eye contact
  10. RQs (4:50)
  11. When presenting your results, describe the gamified learning context (”what”) and how students feel.
  12. Consider organizing your results and discussion section by activity.
  13. “Attention to peer success”?
  14. “finally, we can conclude…” When you say this, you should show a conclusion slide.
  15. 13:25
Victor
- Summary
  
  This research paper by Victor Manuel Torres García examines how teacher attitudes and emotional regulation impact the socioemotional development and academic performance of students. By comparing public and private school environments, the study explores how emotional contagion and nonverbal communication shape classroom dynamics and psychological safety. Findings suggest that positive teacher interactions foster high-trust environments where students feel secure enough to participate and take risks. Conversely, the text highlights how teacher stress and perceived favoritism can trigger student anxiety and diminish motivation. Ultimately, the source argues that socioemotional learning is a fundamental pillar of education that requires teachers to act as empathetic guides.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the back matter in Víctor Manuel Torres García’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the provided file content terminates on page 25 with the categories of his qualitative codebook, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, all academic and theoretical citations used throughout his chapters currently lack their corresponding bibliographic entries.
  
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the manuscript does not contain a bibliography or reference list, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Action Items for the Author
  - Missing References Section (Urgent): The manuscript currently contains 0 references because the text cuts off early. To comply with university guidelines and graduation requirements, Víctor must compile and insert a formal reference list containing at least 10 academic references that correspond directly to his text citations.
  - Incomplete Examiner Block (Page 2): On the official institutional Approval Page, the reviewer validation line remains incomplete and retains the generic template text: “Faculty of Language Department:”.
  - Truncated Appendix Materials: While pages 24 and 25 successfully list the interview prompts and the open-coding categories for socioemotional development (addressing trust, emotional contagion, and teacher attitude), any additional field data—such as raw classroom observation logs, completed student survey statistics, or percentage tables—are missing due to the early termination of the file.
- Presentation Notes
  1. Use upper and lowercase lettering in your title. I would add the date to your title.
  2. Add a problem to your problem slide.
  3. Break down your ideas into separate slides - one slide per key point. Avoid writing out complete sentences and include key words, graphics, tables, images, etc.
  4. Use headings for each slide with key point you are trying to make.
  5. It is not necessary to mention the citation as long as it appears on the slide when you mention it.
  6. RQs (3:20) - Remove “problem” from your slide.
  7. In the method you said something about students telling you something… Say this in your problem slide.
  8. Results (5:00)
  9. I do not see your RQs in your thesis paper.
  10. One way to organize your results and discussion section to create a group of slides for public school teachers and a group of slides for the private school teachers. Remove “Results” heading and create more specific headings for each slide.
  11. Conclusion (17:30)
  12. 19:00
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.

Feedback for Friday

Aydali
- Summary
  
  This academic research explores how English as a Foreign Language teachers utilize elicitation strategies to facilitate student self-correction within a private language school setting. The study identifies strategic pausing and question-based prompts as the most frequent methods used to guide learners toward independent repair of grammatical and lexical errors. By analyzing the timing of feedback, the author highlights how immediate intervention can effectively prevent the fossilization of language mistakes without necessarily disrupting conversational flow. A significant portion of the text emphasizes the necessity of fostering a growth mindset, which redefines errors as valuable learning opportunities rather than negative failures. Ultimately, the findings suggest that combining targeted elicitation with a supportive classroom environment significantly enhances learner autonomy and communicative confidence. This comprehensive investigation utilizes data triangulation across observations, teacher interviews, and student focus groups to validate the pedagogical benefits of these corrective techniques.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a careful cross-reference of the in-text citations and academic frameworks throughout the body text and appendices against the bibliography in the References section (pages 22–24) , here is the list of unmatched items for Aydali Guadalupe Palomino Castañeda’s thesis:
  
  1. Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  These entries or specific source iterations are cited dynamically in the text but are missing from the final bibliography:
```
**Panova and Lyster, 2002** (Cited on page 3 as an indirect citation: *"Panova and Lyster, 2002, as cited in Ayouni and El Sukny, 2022"*).
```
```
- > *Note on APA 7th Edition Standards:* In a secondary source citation, only the secondary source (**Ayouni & El-Sukny, 2022**) needs to be included in the reference list . However, if the author intended to cite them directly elsewhere, it is missing.
```
```
**Obando** (Cited on page 4 as an indirect citation: *"Obando, as cited in Ayouni & El Sukny, 2022"*).
```
```
**Dailey** (Cited on page 5 as an indirect citation: *"Dailey, as cited in Ayouni & El Sukny, 2022"*).
```
  2. References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  These academic works are explicitly detailed in the References bibliography but are never actually cited anywhere in the provided chapters, appendices, or the operational data codebook:
```
**Linde Svantesson, M., & Ticak, S. (2023).** *Challenges, needs, and connection points in EFL teachers' and students' perspectives of formative assessment.*
```
```
- > *Note:* While a secondary source mention on page 10 text references *"Lauvås and Jönsson, 2019, as cited in Svantesson, 2023"* , the matching entry in the reference list includes **Linde Svantesson & Ticak (2023)**, leaving a mismatch between the in-text citation name string and the bibliography entry format.
```
```
**Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997).** *Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake.* 
  
  - > *Note:* While page 2 mentions a study identifying six feedback types by **Lyster and Ranta (1997)**, it is missing an exact direct parenthetical citation match or is isolated from active linkage in the text data.
```
- Presentation Notes
  1. Consider including the date in your title slide.
  2. Try to get to your literature review within 30 seconds.
  3. Less text in your problem and purpose slide and check the size of your text to assure it is not too small.
  4. Literature review (2:00)
  5. Less text… try to avoid complete sentences, but do include citations. I like the graphic you used in the first slide.
  6. Second slide in literature review: good, but consider less text and other visuals like images, photos, SmartArt, etc.
  7. RQs (7:30) - I think I would remove “Linguistic Gap” in slide
  8. “Method” instead of “Methodology)
  9. Adapt your graphic to show the order you collected the data, discussing the instruments as you go.
  10. Results and Discussion (10:00)
  11. Perhaps the table and chart both are not necessary.
  12. Use pseudonyms when presenting your oral defense and do the same in your thesis paper.
  13. Review “Results” and “Discussion” headings in your slides. Create clear headings for each slide.
  14. Include more
  15. Conclusion (15:30) - less words; separate references to another slide
  16. 16:40
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.
Naomi
- Summary
  
  This research paper explores how inductive grammar teaching enhances speaking skills and social interaction among primary school students learning English. By shifting from traditional rule memorization to a guided discovery process, the study demonstrates that children become more active participants when analyzing language patterns. The findings emphasize that collaborative activities, such as pair work and peer correction, reduce student anxiety and encourage more frequent verbal communication. Furthermore, the integration of interactive materials and educational technology proved essential in maintaining student motivation and providing contextualized practice. Ultimately, the author suggests that teacher scaffolding and dynamic resources allow young learners to develop linguistic confidence more effectively than rote learning methods.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the back matter in Nahomi Yatziri’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the provided file content terminates on page 36 with the categories of her qualitative data analysis codebook, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, all theoretical or empirical citations utilized throughout her introduction and literature review chapters currently lack their corresponding bibliographic reference entries.
  
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the manuscript does not contain a bibliography or reference list, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders
  - The Title/Approval Page Template Leak (Page 2): In alignment with recurring formatting errors found across this undergraduate cohort, Nahomi has left the institutional template title intact on her official approval sheet. Her Approval Page (Page 2) states that the thesis is titled “English Teachers’ Perceptions and Preferences of Teaching in Basic and High Educative Levels”. This completely contradicts her actual research topic displayed on Page 1: “Inductive Grammar Teaching in Primary Education”.
  - Examiner Block Left Empty (Page 2): On the official institutional signature sheet, the external reviewer line still retains the template placeholder: “Faculty of Language Department: Add name”.
  - Truncated Appendix Materials: While pages 35 and 36 successfully showcase her qualitative codebook mapping out inductive grammar interactions (such as guided questions, structural analysis, and visual scaffolding), any additional data sheets—such as raw PRONI observation logs, student interview responses, or lesson plan samples—are missing due to the early termination of the manuscript file.
- Presentation Notes
  1. My name is… as you know.
  2. Review title slide.
  3. Add a problem and purpose slide after your title slide. Then, your third slide should be related to the first concept from your literature.
  4. Avoid mentioning your study.
  5. Include a citation to support your problem (slide).
  6. Avoid heavy signs
  7. RQ (2.43)
  8. Create specific headings for each key point for each slide.
  9. Less text in your slides.
  10. Avoid the literature review conclusion slide.
  11. Avoid repeating research questions in your presentation.
  12. Method (5:00) - Consider a visual to represent the order you followed to collect the data.
  13. Avoid showing any instruments (i.e., any appendices) since you already have this in your thesis paper.
  14. Avoid saying, “as I told you”
  15. Results and Discussion (7:00)
  16. Avoid, “I divided… into four points…”
  17. Show your results (triangulating your data sources) in your slides and offer verbally your discussion.
  18. Avoid including any appendices in your presentation.
  19. Teacher adapted their class… Show your results.
  20. Interactive materials and technology slide:
  21. Speaking development?
  22. Try to present results by comparing group A with group B.
  23. Conclusion (12:00)
  24. Include references according to APA… but don’t read aloud the references.
  25. 13:30
1. Develop each body paragraph in the theory and results and discussion section according to the MEAL plan: The M.E.A.L. Plan: A Comprehensive Approach to Paragraph Development.
2. Begin each body paragraph with M.E. and conclude with A.L.
3. Begin thesis paper with an Introduction Paragraph.
4. Per course guidelines (Thesis Seminar Course Guidelines 2026.pdf), you need at least eight primary research articles in your references (no more than two books, etc.).
Mauro
- Summary
  
  The provided text is a thesis by Mauro Emilio Ortiz Gallegos that investigates how university-level English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers utilize diverse feedback modalities to improve student writing. The research examines the strategic integration of teacher-student writing conferences, technology-mediated feedback, and collaborative peer interaction. Findings suggest that these methods are most effective when used as an interconnected system tailored to the specific linguistic needs and proficiency levels of the students. Writing conferences specifically allow for the negotiation of meaning, while asynchronous digital comments provide direct corrections and motivational support. Additionally, the study highlights that structured peer feedback helps students develop greater grammatical awareness and autonomy. Ultimately, the author concludes that a flexible, blended approach to feedback is essential for fostering student engagement and confidence in academic writing.
- Citations and references
  
  Based on a cross-reference check between the body text and the back matter in Mauro Emilio Ortiz Gallegos’s document, here are the identified discrepancies:
  
  Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  Because the provided file content ends on page 36 with his qualitative data codebook categories, the formal References section is completely missing from this document. As a result, any external academic or theoretical citations used to build the introduction and literature review sections currently lack their required bibliographic reference entries.
  
  References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Because the document does not include a reference list or bibliography, there are no uncited references to display.
  
  Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders
  - The Title/Approval Page Template Leak (Page 1): On the absolute first leaf (the Title Page), the document title remains as the generic instructional placeholder text: “Title of thesis manuscript”.
  - Approval Page Template Match (Page 2): On the official Approval Page, the text has been updated to a specific title: “English Teachers’ Implementation of Diverse Writing Feedback Modalities”. This title aligns cleanly with the conceptual summary presented in the abstract, but the primary Title Page (Page 1) must be updated to mirror this exactly.
  - Examiner Line Left Blank (Page 2): The reviewer signature block still retains the cohort-wide template placeholder text: “Faculty of Language Department: Add name”.
  - Truncated Appendix Materials: While pages 31–36 map out a detailed structural codebook outlining feedback modalities (conferences, technology-mediated feedback, and peer interactions), any additional data appendices (such as actual student script drafts, raw observation logs, or questionnaire templates) are missing due to the early termination of the manuscript file.
- Presentation Notes
  1. I would add something related to the UAA or Thesis Seminar in your title slide.
  2. Use upper and lowercase lettering in your title slide.
  3. Less text in your problem and purpose slide.
  4. In your first slide for your literature review, replace “Literature Review” heading for a heading that best represents the key point for this slide (”Writing Conferences”).
  5. Make sure you have a reason for including two theoretical concepts in the same slide. For exampe, technology-related feedback and various lengths of time.
  6. Avoid mentioning your study until you present your RQs. “This theory does include… because I only focused on…”
  7. Check your headings in your theory to make sure each represents a different key point.
  8. Less text overall in your slides.
  9. It is not necessary to refer to the authors, but if you do, make sure it is being cited in the slide you currently. You mentioned, Vygotsky, but there was no reference in the slide you were in.
  10. Include one slide for your research questions. (8:00)
  11. Method (8:00) - less text and remove “(see Appendix…)” - Try limiting your Method to one slide
  12. Include a visual that represents the way in which you collected your data.
  13. Results and Discuss (9:40)
  14. Present your results (triangulating your data in the slides) first and then your discussion verbally.
  15. You are missing results in your presentation.
  16. Avoid mentioning anything not related to your research questions and anything not presented in your theory.
  17. Present categories of feedback in your results.
  18. “I didn’t like the online feedback because of the distance” - What does this mean? What is your interpretation about this?
  19. Again, avoid discussing anything you do not have in your theory.
  20. Include citations in your slides when relating your results to the theory.
  21. Conclusion (19:00)
  22. Include a slide for your references and a “thank you” slide.
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.
David
- Summary
- Citations and References
  
  Based on a thorough cross-examination of the in-text citations within the chapters against the final bibliography in the References section (pages 31–32) , here are the mismatched items found in David Tejeda Huerta’s thesis document:
  
  1. Citations with No Corresponding References
  
  These entries are cited directly within the body text but are completely missing from the reference list:
```
**Puchta, 2013** (Cited on page 10).
```
```
> 
  > 
  > 
  > *Note:* While a floating reference entry for **Puchta (2013)** exists at the top of page 32 (*"Puchta, H. (2013). Developing intermediate learners..."*), it lacks its own independent bullet/source indicator or proper hanging structure, isolating it from a clean automated bibliographic match .
  >
```
```
**Lynch, 2009** (Cited on page 11).
  
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > *Note:* Similarly to Puchta, a text entry for **Lynch (2009)** exists embedded at the bottom of page 31 (*"Lynch, T. (2009). Teaching second language listening..."*), but it lacks an explicit source or entry line break, splitting the reference away from formal indexing.
  >
```
  2. References with No Corresponding Citations
  
  Every reference listed in the bibliography section on pages 31–32 (Altun, 2015 ; Banks, 2015; Ellis, 2003; Field, 2008 ; Flowerdew & Miller, 2005; Gay, 2010 ; González et al., 2005 ; Hammond & Gibbons, 2005 ; Harmer, 2015 ; Kramsch, 1998; Livingstone, 1983; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994 ; Norton, 2013 ; Paivio, 1991 ; Pedraza Vázquez et al., 2025 ; Reyes & Vega, 2023 ; Richards, 2006 ; Richards, 2008 ; Skehan, 1996 ; Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2017 ; Tuan & Mai, 2015 ; Walqui, 2006 ) explicitly maps back to corresponding arguments or data frames in the body text. There are no un-cited bibliographic sources.
- Presentation Notes
  1. Use upper and lowercase in your title slide. Add date to your presentation.
  2. Less text in your problem and purpose slide. Simplify what you say about the problem and get right to the point. Get to your first literature review slide in 30 seconds.
  3. Avoid saying, “Sorry…” when you make a mistake or get stuck.
  4. Separate your literature review into separate ideas: one slide per idea with its how heading. Less text and consider key words, images, photos, tables, etc.
  5. Make sure you do not lean on anything while you speak. Record yourself giving your presentation (video) and notice your non-verbal communication.
  6. RQs (8:00)
  7. Mention the consent form, but do not consider it instruments used to collect your data.
  8. What are your data sources? Observations and interviews… and documents?
  9. Results and Discussion (11:00)
  10. Present your results in your slides (each slide with its respective key point).
  11. “I don’t know if you about KWL…” Avoid asking rhetorical questions.
  12. How long did participate in the role play? Describe in greater detail the role play.
  13. Triangulate results in your slides…
  14. Wordsheets were modified by the students? Great, show this in your slides!
  15. Include direct quotes in your slides.
  16. Conclusion (11:50)
  17. 18:40
1. Review possible questions examiners might ask.

Benjamin L. Stewart

Explorer

Thesis Seminar Module 16: Mock Presentations (Feedback)

Group Feedback

1. Foundational Philosophy: From Manuscript to Performance

2. Title and Problem Definition: Establishing the Research Hook

Title Slide Requirements

The Problem and Purpose Slide

Rhetorical Strategy: Answer, Don’t Ask

3. Theoretical Framework: Narrative Construction and Scholarly Authority

Time and Volume Standards

Standards of Objectivity and Evidence

4. Methodological Precision: The Chronological Account

Structural Components

Visual and Strategic Requirements

5. The Results and Discussion: Data Triangulation and Critical Thought

The Triangulation Mandate

Detail and Analytical Synthesis

6. Conclusions and Academic Closure

The Conclusion Slide

Reference Standards

7. Rhetorical Performance and Delivery Excellence

Performance Mastery

Handling the Q&A: Scope Management

Final Formatting and Alignment Checklist

The Art of Triangulation: Connecting Data to Build Unshakable Arguments

1. The “Why” Behind Triangulation: Beyond Simple Observation

2. The Four Pillars of Evidence: Instruments and Their Roles

3. The Chronological Path to Discovery: Mapping the Method

4. Executing the Triangulation: A Logic Case Study

5. Precision Over Generalization: The Qualitative Researcher’s Voice

Checklist for Precision and Intentionality

6. The Final Connection: Aligning Findings with Theory

1. The Core Philosophy: Slides as Guides, Not Scripts

2. Building the Foundation: Title and Problem/Purpose Slides

3. Mapping the Theory: Visualizing the Literature Review

4. Visualizing the Method: Order, Precision, and Ethics

5. The Deep Dive: Results, Discussion, and Triangulation

6. Polishing the Delivery: Design Etiquette and Performance

7. Final Checklist for the Aspiring Presenter

Feedback for Monday

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Critical Action Items for the Author

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Additional Formatting Discrepancies (Template Placeholders)

1. Citations with No Corresponding References

2. References with No Corresponding Citations

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Critical Institutional & Formatting Discrepancies

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders

Feedback for Tuesday

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Additional Critical Discrepancies

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders

1. Citations with No Corresponding References

2. References with No Corresponding Citations

1. Citations with No Corresponding References

2. References with No Corresponding Citations

Feedback for Wednesday

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Critical Institutional & Formatting Discrepancies

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Critical Institutional & Formatting Discrepancies

Citations with No Corresponding References

References with No Corresponding Citations

Critical Institutional & Template Placeholders

Citations with No Corresponding References