# data[].attributes.body
Agree that it is a well-paced presentation, and great literature background. Adding in more discussion on potential gender differences (and not -> how you still expect it being aligned with self-concept theory) as well as the potential differences between spam vs. main account in the use/change of profile pictures would be great.

Thank you for the great effort!

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Hu: A well-paced presentation, easy to follow, with a reasonable number of slides.

Citation of a usage rate of Instagram among adolescents is a good justification for the choice to focus on Instagram profile photo. Literature review is well done, systematic, focused, providing theoretical links to the research question. The efforts on implementing a random selection to draw the sample are highly commendable!! The data shared from focus group and interviews (further observations from the data shared during the Q&A session) are interesting and worth incorporating into the final report. The presentation of findings is clear.

Two suggestions on presentation of findings: 1) To add some explanation to certain terms/acronyms used by your respondents, as those are not necessarily familiar or clear to your readers 2) To attach the respective self-concept score and frequency of Instagram use to the quoted respondent: for example, "quote" (Respondent A, self-concept score 2 or 3, frequency of Instagram use 0.5 hours or 2 hours per day).

# data[].attributes.body
I like your thoughfulness in your study. You addressed the "elephant in the room" at the beginning of the presentation by being open to say that profile pictures is your focus -> "small feature" as you said but impactful. You then argued why this is key. I like that! That is engaging. That shows that you are carving out a siginficance for your study.

I also like how you bring in the results (interview quotes) and then use them to support your points.

One improvement is to connect back your findings to the theories as a last slide. This brings everything together since you had started out with a great survey of the lit.

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you for the solid presentation and the research work. As mentioned, you have pretty rigorous considerations in your study. In summary: 1) do consider using language data as a proxy for culture, 2) think a bit more about how you define monolingualism vs multilingualism. I am still concerned how monolingualism is define here, e.g., is someone who can speak and read but cannot write a second language be considered as a "monolingual". As suggested, either you relook at how you categorize and define monolingualism (vs. multilingualism), and/or discussing this as a major limitation of the study in your report?

Once again, great job and I enjoyed your presentation very much :)

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Hu: Clear structure of presentation; Mixed methods design; paid attention to ethical issues of the research (anonymity, voluntary participation, informed consent); good discussion on the study limitations

Question: There is somewhat a mismatch between the research question and the presented research findings. The research question implies an experimental design, or at least a systematic, well-thought comparison between a peer counseler user group, a chatbot user group and perhaps a group that used none of the two, to compare the effectiveness of peer counsellor vs. chatbot in addressing adolescent boys' mental health. The presented findings are mostly respondents' perceptions of both in terms of stigma, empathy, privacy, accessibility. The students handled this question very well. The research findings itself is insightful and valuable. Perhaps the students can consider slightly tweaking the title of the presentation of the research question to ensure a greater coherence.

Clarification question: only students who had experienced either peer counselling or chatbot counselling are admitted to the survey?

Suggestion about survey design: the first question in your survey asks respondents who had no experience in either peer counsellors or chatbot to just skip the question. But at the same time all questions are optional. So how do you distinguish those who do not wish to answer the question from those who did not fit in any of the provided responses?

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Hu: Well done! The study is quite strong in terms of methodological rigor: use of established scale, conducting trial survey run. The efforts on getting respondents from a wide range of countries and languages is commendable.

Initially I had questions about the sample size, but this was acknowledged as a study limitation.

I understand that personal information is not to be collected to keep the survey low-risk to avoid the need to seek parental consent. But I don't think country of residence, ethnicity, education, or religion are sensitive personal information, because you can't really use them to identify any specific respondent. Those are general social attributes, very different from identifiable personal information like name, national ID, telephone number. These social attributes are important to the research topic at hand. Not taking them into account needs to be acknowledged as a study limitation (the findings presented are simple mean comparisons of the two groups). I agree with my co-panelist Dr. Yow, using language as a proxy for cultural background is a good idea. The students may wish to incorporate their findings on this in the final report.

# data[].attributes.body
I like that in your literature review, you pointed out arguments against the link between language (multi or mono) -> empathy or perceptions of emotions. You state the point that education could be a confounder. My questions are how do you consider these issues in your research design such that you take these points into consideration? While your study is novel in the various factors that you mentioned, was it also "novel" in considering these factors such that we can also make sure we can robustly study this relationship beyween language (multi or mono) -> outcomes?

Great presentation. Very eloquent!

# data[].attributes.headline
Where AI is a lot more present than we Think

# data[].attributes.subject
Where AI is a lot more present than we Think

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting paper!

Perhaps some considerations - the different regulatory frameworks/structures which govern chatbot use in social work and how this has implications for the responses received (local vs international references). Consider how regulatory frameworks/structures also govern/influence counseling in schools and thus the intervention available.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job, timely topic! A few questions: 1) I understand that you only involve males in your study because of your school. It would be good to include in your final report whether you believe there is a difference between males and females in their preferences towards peer or chatbot counsellors 2) examine how familiarity might be an important factor influencing trust and preferences, 3) examine the underlying factors (Ai authenticity? AI anthromophism?) that drive the differences, 4) include numbers and tests to substantiate your conclusions.

Cool research!

# data[].attributes.body
1) The presentation is really engaging. There was a good balance of "dry" results and with team's interpretation of findings and linking to application. This makes it engaging and applicable.

2) Some transitions of slide were too quick. Also the results can be improved by providing more quotations from the interviews to help enrich the quant findings

3) The study context of ACS is NOT necessarily a limitation. By focusing on ACS gives you practice implications that you can apply to ACS. Your findings may also be useful for other school context.

4) The key strength in your study is the focus on peer counsellors and constrasting it with chatbot. Maybe giving the rationale for that would help audience to better see the significance of this study!

great job team!

# data[].attributes.body
Slides are well-made, and pace of presentation is easy to follow. However, could elaborate further on the need for interviews, and how the fusing of both interview and survey mechanisms have impacted your overall conclusions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dr. Hu: The student did a very good job discussing the conceptual parameters and the social and academic significance of the study. The explanation of key concepts and the justification for focusing on bilingual adolescents are clear. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Dr. Hu: The student did a very good job discussing the conceptual parameters and the social and academic significance of the study. The explanation of key concepts and the justification for focusing on bilingual adolescents are clear. 

# data[].attributes.body
Some of the images do not really match the content of the slides. Example (the definition slide and the picture of a man with his head in his hands).

pie charts are difficult to read, consider other types of graphs (bar charts ordered in terms of degree of agreement), particularly when you show attitudinal data (different extents of agreement)

# data[].attributes.body
1) I echo what Prof Hu Shu has suggested

show the numbers so that we can judge for ourselves whether the gender was "balanced" and whether the race/ethnicites was a "mix"

Frequency of code switching was the key operationalization of the construct but the results seem to indicate agreement to statement

Showing the numbers will also help us to assess your research limitations

2) A point on the presentation: Presenting some examples of what code switching is (or as used by adolescents) would help audience to better understand the construct beyond just a definition.

Overall great topic for a presentation!

# data[].attributes.body
It would be good if the questions from the questionnaire was included in the slides, as what the pie charts meant were not clearly stated.

# data[].attributes.body
What are some challenges you faced during snowball sampling, considering the fact that finding adolescent monolingual individuals in Singapore can be difficult? How did you manage to overcome/partially overcome these challenges?

# data[].attributes.body
to what extent do peer influences amplify implicit bias compared to explicit bias? could peer pressure and conformity create “hidden” biases that are harder to detect?

# data[].attributes.headline
Feedback Guidelines (for Panellist Reference)

# data[].attributes.subject
Feedback Guidelines (for Panellist Reference)

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you for spending time with us this morning to help our young researchers! You may consider giving feedback to projects based on their presentation delivery and on the following points:

1. Mastery of subject knowledge

- Does the project demonstrate extensive knowledge of subject?

- Is there convincing evidence to support ideas and conclusions?

- Are all questions answered with clear elaboration?

2. Organisation of presentation

- Is the organisation of the argument clear and logical?

3. Significance of project

- Is the project relevant or important to the field?

- Will it make a significant contribution?

~ HSSRP Organising Committee.

# data[].attributes.body
To add a comment to a post, click the space that says: Add comment. Alternatively, you can add a post by pressing the "+" under the project tag heading you are commenting on. When leaving a comment, please begin with your project tag/name.
For example:
Dr Smith: this group has demonstrated extensive knowledge of the subject. However, you can try to make more eye contact with the audience.
XYZP9: the presentation was well organised but the slides were too cluttered and difficult to read. You spoke energetically!