The following areas should be assessed for each oral presentation: content, knowledge of subject, organization, and presentation. Caveat: not every element within the categories listed below is necessary for every presentation. The logic of the discipline should determine which are necessary for inclusion.
Content
Weight this category more heavily by multiplying this score by 2
Excellent 5
- Compelling, concise depiction of issue, problem research question or hypothesis investigated; clearly situates topic in academic field and makes clear the significance of the topic
- Interesting, thoughtful analysis of evidence presented and evidence well chosen for project
- Scope of project is logically defined
- Significant level of complex thought is evidenced in the project
Good 4
- Clear depiction of issue, problem research question or hypothesis investigated; situates topic in academic field generally and suggests the significance of the topic
- Sound analysis of evidence presented and evidence relatively well chosen for project
- Scope of project is defined reasonably
- Notable complex thought is evidenced in the project
Limited 3
- Limited depiction of issue, problem research question or hypothesis investigated; situates topic in academic field overly generally and has difficulty suggesting the significance of the topic
- Analysis of evidence presented but not always clear and evidence chosen for project relatively slight in quantity and/or quality
- Scope of project is defined in a limiting or overly diffuse manner
- Relatively complex thought is evidenced in the project
Poor 2
- Little to no depiction of issue, problem research question or hypothesis investigated; inability to situate topic in academic field or suggest the significance of the topic
- Analysis of evidence presented unclear and evidence chosen for project inadequate in quantity and/or quality
- Scope of project is not well defined
- Complex thought is not evidenced in the project
Knowledge of Subject
Excellent 5
- Presentation is confidently (even enthusiastically) offered and ability to add extemporaneously is evident
- Responses to Q&A are clear, detailed, and show active engagement with the material and solid understanding of areas for future research and limitations of the present work
Good 4
- Presentation is confidently offered and ability to add extemporaneously is sometimes evident
- Responses to Q&A are clear and show engagement with the material and understanding of areas for future research and limitations of the present work
Limited 3
- Presentation is clearly offered though ability to add extemporaneously is not evident
- Responses to Q&A are relatively clear and show some engagement with the material as well as some understanding of areas for future research and limitations of the present work
Poor 2
- Presentation suggests uncertainty about the materials
- Responses to Q&A are not clear nor do they show any and understanding of areas for future research and limitations of the present work
Organization
Excellent 5
- Presentation has a clear and logical beginning, middle, and end
- Presentation content is structured logically and therefore easy to understand and follow
- Presentation meets but does not exceed time limit and presenter uses all time well
Good 4
- Presentation’s beginning, middle, and end are distinguishable
- Presentation content is structured in an understandable manner
- Presentation is neither significantly over or under the time limit and presenter uses time relatively well
Limited 3
- Presentation’s beginning, middle, and end are somewhat vague or unclear
- Presentation content is organized in a manner that allows for some confusion
- Presentation is noticeably over or under the time limit
Poor 2
- Presentation’s beginning, middle, and end are not well planned
- Presentation content is disorganized
- Presentation fails to respect time limit
Presentation
Excellent 5
- Presenter speaks clearly and at a pace that easily allows listeners to understand their presentation
- Presenter uses eye contact and gestures in ways that substantively add to the presentation
- All supplementary materials used are needed and substantively add to the presentation
Good 4
- Presenter speaks clearly and at a pace that allows listeners to understand their presentation
- Presenter uses eye contact and gestures in ways that add to the presentation
- All supplementary materials used are needed and add to the presentation
Limited 3
- Presenter speaks relatively clearly and at a pace that does not significantly detract from listeners’ ability to understand their presentation
- Presenter uses eye content and gestures in ways that begin to detract from the presentation OR rarely uses eye contact or gestures
- Supplementary materials do not significantly add to the presentation
Poor 2
- Presenter does not consistently speak clearly or at a pace that allows listeners to understand their presentation
- Presenter uses eye content and gestures in ways that detract from the presentation OR fails to use eye contact or gestures
- Supplementary materials do not add to the presentation