Poster Deliverables

These posters and videos will be shared publicly during the Symposium. It is essential that students Work closely with their Corporate Partner Mentor to identify what parts of the project can be publicly shared without violating any NDAs. The Data Mine will send all posters to review the company’s legal team before posting for the Symposium.

[Per Team] One 2 x 3 feet poster submitted as a PDF. Click here to download a poster template. We encourage you to change the colors of your poster to match the branding requirements of your corporate partner.
- Subteams should work together to make one poster.
- It is imperative that you work closely with your Corporate Partner Mentor to identify what parts of the project can be publicly shared.

Expectations

All students must contribute to the poster and video, but likely in different roles.
Here are some examples of different roles the students can fill (as well as added suggestions):
- One student can take the poster content and translate it to PowerPoint slides. It is recommended that you add more visuals to your slides and please do not make them text heavy.
- One student can write the script for the video. Make sure to practice reading it to ensure it fits within the required time.
- One student can create the recording and voice over
- One student can do any necessary editing and add the closed captions.
Work closely with your Corporate Partner Mentor to identify what parts of the project can be publicly shared. The Data Mine will send all posters to review the company’s legal team before posting for the Symposium.

Due Dates

Drafts of the poster and video due Wednesday, March 8, 2023.

Final versions of the poster and video due Wednesday, April 5, 2023.

A submitted poster draft should be at least 75% complete. Any sections without content/visuals should contain notes of what will be added.

Examples

The Data Mine had a virtual symposium in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Please note we had fewer Corporate Partner teams in 2020 & 2021. It would be helpful to watch some of the videos and review the posters from 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2021-22.

Honorable Mentions For Best Posters

Honorable Mentions For Best Videos

Merck Biometrics Poster 2020-21

Minecraft Poster 2020-21

Beck’s Hybrids Supply Chain Poster 2020-21

Merck Biometrics Video 2020-21

Merck RFID Video 2020-21

Another helpful resource when creating your poster:

Create your poster

Create your poster outline in PowerPoint and save it in the general channel of your MS Teams group. Click here to download a poster template. We encourage you to change the colors of your poster to match the branding requirements of your corporate partner.
Your poster should not be text heavy — it is not a paper, so complete sentences should be limited. Make sure to include multiple visuals and keep sentences to a minimum. Bullet points are encouraged.
Make sure to include all of these categories:

Introduction/Background/Motivation

• We recommend looking back at the project description and materials shared during the first weeks of the fall semester. This will be a great resource to find introduction and background material and wording.

Research Methodology

• The “how” of your research

Conclusions

• What are your big picture findings?

Future Goals

• What are next steps if you had more time to continue?

References & Acknowledgements

• Thank your CRP Mentors, any faculty mentors, and others that helped on the project.

• Cite your sources! There may be too many to include, but list a few key sources.

Figures

• Make sure to include relevant visuals

Layout & Design

• Keep font and colors consistent.

• Make sure it is visually appealing. Zoom out and make the entire poster shows on your screen. What do you notice about it? Is it full of text? Too much white space? Not enough images? Flow is confusing?

Check out these helpful resources.

Great tutorials: www.makesigns.com/tutorials/
Layout and design tips: www.personal.psu.edu/drs18/postershow/
Good vs Bad posters: sites.psu.edu/pubhub/wp-content/uploads/sites/36309/2016/04/Posters-The-Good-and-the-Bad.pdf

Print Your Poster

All teams are responsible for printing their own poster for the symposium. Wide format printing is available in WALC during normal staffing hours. Please note that normal printing quota money cannot be used for wide format printing. Review Purdue’s Wide Format Printing Guidelines for more information.

When printing, please remember that posters for the 2023-24 Data Mine Symposium should be 2 x 3 feet.

Teams will be responsible for printing their own poster for the symposium, but The Data Mine has setup a shared account that can be used for the printing costs. The large format printer is located in WALC and can be used any time during their hours of operation. Please reference the Wide Format Printing Guidelines for how to setup and release a print job to the large format printer. When printing, please remember that posters for the 2023-24 Data Mine Symposium should be 2 x 3 feet.

The ITaP team has also provided the guide below on setting up a wide-format print job at WALC that are included below.

The Data Mine has a shared printing account that the team TA will be able to use to setup and release the print job in WALC.

The shared printing ID will be communicated to the team TA’s.

If you have any questions or issues please email [email protected].

Rubric

Category	Needs Significant Improvement (70%)	Needs Improvement (80%)	Meets Expectations (90%)	Exceeds Expectations (100%)
Introduction/ Background/ Motivation (20 points)	The team did not provide details about the project, the overall goal, and the vision.	The team provides minimal detail on their goals or visions for the project.	The team provides details about why they are doing the work but lacks details about the overall vision.	The team provides an easy-to-understand and thorough overview of their project goals and overall vision.
Research Methodology (20 points)	The team did not provide details about the research process, tools used, or results.	The methodology and results are unclear. The team didn’t explain how the tools were used.	The team briefly mentions the tools and resources used in the project. Details may be unclear.	The team provides precise details on the methodology, tools, and resources used in the project.
Conclusions (20 points)	The team did not provide any details on the overall outcome or findings of the project.	The team’s overview was difficult to understand and didn’t show a path forward for the coming semester.	The team provides an overview of the semester’s work and goals but may leave some details. Some of the reviews may be too technical for most audiences.	The team provides an easy-to-understand and concise overview of the semester’s work and the student’s learnings. Topics are easy to understand with any level of technical expertise.
Future Goals (15 points)	The team did not provide any insight on potential advancements to the project.	The team does not have a well-defined future vision or steps to complete the work.	The team provides an outline of future work but may not have as much detail as how they plan to accomplish the milestones.	The team provides a clear outline of future goals and how they relate to the overall vision and the current semester’s work.
Reference and Acknowledgments (5 points)	The acknowledgment section is missing.	The team did not list any additional contributions or support for the project. (And it’s known that other parties supported them.)	The team listed contributors in an “Acknowledgement” section.	The team was sure to call out anyone who helped support the team or contribute to the project.
Figures (10 points)	Little visualizations to convey content shared.	Many visualizations don’t seem to be related to the subject at all.	Visualizations are good but may not always be related directly to the topic. Some are a bit confusing to interpret.	Visualizations are compelling and help to drive the story and user understanding.
Layout and Design (10 points)	The presentation lacks a layout and design that attracts the audience.	The presentation is poorly designed, confusing, and distracting. Topics are hard to follow, and the work doesn’t appear professional.	The presentation is professionally done and easy to understand. Flow and color selections need improvements.	The presentation is concise and compelling. It’s easy to read and understand quickly.
Overall Feedback & Comments

Category

Needs Significant Improvement (70%)

Needs Improvement (80%)

Meets Expectations (90%)

Exceeds Expectations (100%)

Introduction/ Background/ Motivation (20 points)

The team did not provide details about the project, the overall goal, and the vision.

The team provides minimal detail on their goals or visions for the project.

The team provides details about why they are doing the work but lacks details about the overall vision.

The team provides an easy-to-understand and thorough overview of their project goals and overall vision.

Research Methodology (20 points)

The team did not provide details about the research process, tools used, or results.

The methodology and results are unclear. The team didn’t explain how the tools were used.

The team briefly mentions the tools and resources used in the project. Details may be unclear.

The team provides precise details on the methodology, tools, and resources used in the project.

Conclusions (20 points)

The team did not provide any details on the overall outcome or findings of the project.

The team’s overview was difficult to understand and didn’t show a path forward for the coming semester.

The team provides an overview of the semester’s work and goals but may leave some details. Some of the reviews may be too technical for most audiences.

The team provides an easy-to-understand and concise overview of the semester’s work and the student’s learnings. Topics are easy to understand with any level of technical expertise.

Future Goals (15 points)

The team did not provide any insight on potential advancements to the project.

The team does not have a well-defined future vision or steps to complete the work.

The team provides an outline of future work but may not have as much detail as how they plan to accomplish the milestones.

The team provides a clear outline of future goals and how they relate to the overall vision and the current semester’s work.

Reference and Acknowledgments (5 points)

The acknowledgment section is missing.

The team did not list any additional contributions or support for the project. (And it’s known that other parties supported them.)

The team listed contributors in an “Acknowledgement” section.

The team was sure to call out anyone who helped support the team or contribute to the project.

Figures (10 points)

Little visualizations to convey content shared.

Many visualizations don’t seem to be related to the subject at all.

Visualizations are good but may not always be related directly to the topic. Some are a bit confusing to interpret.

Visualizations are compelling and help to drive the story and user understanding.

Layout and Design (10 points)

The presentation lacks a layout and design that attracts the audience.

The presentation is poorly designed, confusing, and distracting. Topics are hard to follow, and the work doesn’t appear professional.

The presentation is professionally done and easy to understand. Flow and color selections need improvements.

The presentation is concise and compelling. It’s easy to read and understand quickly.

Overall Feedback & Comments