Aside from all this there was one poster in particular that caught my attention. The title of it was “WHO NEEDS PSYCHOLOGISTS when you’ve got teacher.” (Yes the Caps lock was on purpose!) I believe the poster had dealt with and talked about the relationship between the number of psychologists in a given area and the number of ADHD cases diagnosed compared to the number teachers diagnosing and recognizing ADHD in students. The content itself was impressive and very interesting but it was the elements of the poster that really drew my attention from the start. I believe a very important aspect of the posters are titles. Titles are usually the first things that are read and can be a pretty persuasive factor in determining, who, and, how many people will ask for a pitch. This poster did just that, an interesting title written in a unique way,
In addition, this poster from a Brooklyn college group, had many of the key elements we were talking about. Pictures, graphs and a nice variety of color. I still think there was a tad too much writing, but the presentation was so well done I didn’t have to read the poster!
Very Well done.
This title got me, too! Very smart title draw on their part. As a Psychology major, I was immediately like “Aw, HELL no,” but the two presenters explained to me their not-so inflammatory data. Their research was: teachers make more ADHD diagnoses than psychologists do. Well, if you think about the amount of time teachers spend with students vs psychologists (plus the amount of students that can actually afford to see a psychologist), these findings make a lot of sense. Teachers spend about 7-8 hours with their students, and get many opportunities to observe the nuances of the kids’ behaviors. The poster wasn’t denouncing the usefulness of psychologists, as the title made it seem like; rather, they made correlations and proved something that was very palatable.
The title is very intriguing in that you don’t know if they are belittling psychologists until you actually read about their study is. Because of this, I think it is an effect title, drawing people in to their poster. As for teachers being able to diagnose people with ADHD… I don’t think that’s true. Teachers are able to compare each child to all the other children in their classrooms, and when they notice that one child is acting abnormally, they can suggest that there is ADHD. A parent wouldn’t be able to do this because he might just think that his child naturally hyper and end up not taking the child to a doctor. In this sense, I think that the teachers suggest abnormalities in the behavior of children which, once actually diagnosed by a psychologist, end up being an accurate ADHD diagnosis.
I really liked what you said about titles and I very much agree. In fact, I realized that the most underrated but important aspect of a poster is its title. We put so much effort into the data and graphs (which is, of course, vital for the poster), that we usually don’t even think to put some thought into our poster title. Or if we do, we don’t think much of it other than a way to put a creative spin on it for fun. But in truth, no matter how stellar the research or how mind-blowing the conclusion is, no one will seek out a poster among the myriad, if it doesn’t pull them in somehow. And a title is what stands out the most (if the font is big enough to catch your eye). People say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but when it comes to scientific posters at a poster session, maybe a clever title is worth a thousand pictures!
This post is getting a lot of love from the class. I’ll let the previous comments shine.
I completely agree with you… Titles and headlines are the most important aspect of any presentation, whether it be a movie title, a book title, etc. This poster was extremely intriguing for me as well (shockingly..) as I am majoring in psychology and plan to become a psychologist one day in the future. I was ready with a bunch of criticisms, ready to interrogate the group members and prove to them that psychologists ARE NEEDED, and that their whole theory was false. However, when the group members began to effectively explain what was meant by their title and what their scientific research was really about, I felt calm and understanding, and no longer felt the urge to defend myself. Yes, it made complete sense. Psychologists don’t see children in every setting. They don’t get the opportunity to observe children in ‘natural’ settings, and this can decrease their likelihood to speedily diagnose a child with ADHD. A teacher, however, who observes the child for 8 hours a day, has a better idea of the child’s true behavior in almost every setting and is more likely to diagnose children with ADHD. The research made complete sense. However, I will admit, I would not have been drawn to this poster if the title hadn’t drawn my complete attention. Yes I will admit, I do judge a book by its’ cover and I’m almost sure most people do too 😉