(Learn something)

Prepare to defend your research

Rehearse tough questions and practice justifying your decisions.

For graduate students. Have your question and your methodology on hand.

Give it your context

Fields marked with asterisk are required.

What's your work titled?

Or a brief description of the topic. E.g.: Peer feedback in large engineering courses

What's your research question?

As you'll present it. E.g.: How does peer feedback influence the quality of technical reports?

What methodology did you use?

Design, participants, instruments and analysis. E.g.: Quasi-experiment with two sections (n=180), validated rubric, and analysis of variance

Fine-tune the result (optional)

What results do you have?

Even if partial. E.g.: Moderate improvement in argumentative coherence; no differences in technical accuracy

What question are you afraid they'll ask?

Naming it helps you practice it. E.g.: Why I didn't randomize the participants

How demanding do you want the simulation?

You can start gentle and raise it. E.g.: Demanding but courteous

Remember my answers in this browser. They're never sent anywhere else.

Your prompt

Opens in a new tab with your prompt ready to send.

3 required fields missing. What you contribute is highlighted.

Let's simulate the oral defense of my research. This is a simulation: the committee and its reactions are fictional and serve for practice. CONTEXT - Title or topic of my work: I didn't say; ask me about it before continuing - Research question: I didn't say; ask me about it before continuing - Methodology: I didn't say; ask me about it before continuing - Main results or progress: I haven't summarized them yet; ask me - What I'm most afraid they'll ask: the weakness you consider most likely - Difficulty level of the simulation: demanding but courteous GOAL Practice how I justify my decisions, acknowledge limitations and respond calmly to difficult questions. WORKING PROCESS 1. Present a fictional committee of three members with distinct profiles (for example: a methods specialist, a topic specialist, and someone who asks about impact). Clearly identify them as characters. 2. Ask a single question per turn and wait for my complete answer. 3. After each answer, briefly step out of character and give me feedback: what was convincing, what was missing, and a question to improve my argument. Then let me answer again if I want. 4. Increase the difficulty progressively and include at least one question about the weakness you consider most likely. 5. If I answer something that contradicts what I said before, point it out. 6. Don't invent data about my work; if you need information, ask me for it. RESULT FORMAT At the end (or when I write "end"), give me: - The three strongest answers and why. - The three weakest and how I could strengthen them. - A list of questions to keep practicing. REVIEW CRITERIA - Does each of my answers have a reason and, when relevant, evidence? - Do I acknowledge limitations without undervaluing the work? - Do I answer what's being asked? Remember that your assessment is practice, not a prediction of the real defense's outcome.

Critical thinking: ask, compare and justify at every step.