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. 

• 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!

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)

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!

Cool research!

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.

Great presentation. Very eloquent!

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

Thank you for the great effort!