2014 UGRC AWARDS

Student Awards

A Student Advisory Council helped determine the awards process and criteria for the 2014 UGRC.* Attendees submitted their votes for Best Student Oral and Poster Presentations.  The following student presenters were recognized during the 2014 UGRC Awards Ceremony:

Best Oral Presentations
Rza Abasov, "Synthetic Studies on Tumor Selective Cytotoxic Agents"
Eliyahu Reiter, "Yeshivish: A New Sociolect From Old Traditions"
Samantha Sundius, "Sustainable Trends?: Constructions of Respectability in Crafts Drinks Professions"

Best Poster Presentations
Tricia Alston, "Variations in the Multimerization Region of the H. pylori CagA Toxin Affects Virulence"
Elena Pires, "Who Killed the Sperm? Exploring the Involvement of Checkpoint Genes on Male Fertility"
Girish Ramattan, "De Novo Transcriptome Assembly and Analysis of Terebra anilis to Identify Novel Neuropeptides"

Faculty Awards

Faculty who provide exceptional research mentoring to Hunter's undergraduates were honored at the 2014 UGRC Awards Ceremony. The Outstanding Undergraduate Mentoring Awards are intended to honor faculty who do an outstanding job mentoring Hunter’s undergraduate students in research and scholarship activities outside of the traditional classroom setting. Both students and faculty nominated outstanding mentors from all disciplines.

The 2014 Outstanding Undergraduate Mentoring Award Winners
Ronnie Ancona (Classical & Oriental Studies)
Robert Jenkins (Political Science)
Cheryl Harding (Psychology)
Donna McGregor (Chemistry)
Robert Raffaniello (Medical Laboratory Sciences)

* The 2013-14 UGRC Student Advisory Council established the following criteria for evaluating student posters and presentations:

For oral presentations, voters were asked to score coherence, communication, and appearance of the poster a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest):

• Coherence:
  
  • What is the quality of the research?
  • Did the presentation flow from research context, to main work, and future directions?
  • Was the information well organized?

• Communication:
  
  • Is the language used clear and easy to understand?
  • Did the presenter answer questions well?

• Delivery:
  
  • Did the presenter speak at a good speed and volume?
  • Were the audio/visual aids useful?
  • Did the presenter connect with the audience?

For posters, voters were asked to score coherence, communication, and appearance of the poster on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest):

• Coherence:
  
  • What is the quality of the research?
  • Does information on the poster include all the necessary elements?
  • Is the information well organized?
• Communication:
  
  • Is the language used clear and easy to understand?
  • If applicable, were your questions answered well?

• Appearance of poster:
  
  • Are the visual aids useful?
  • Is the overall impression favorable?