Rubrics: Oral Presentations
Abstract
Presentation
Excellent (4)
Concise
Complete and very good quality
Introduction: Subject and
problem well introduced,
Pertinent background
information presented
Design of experiment
and methods are
described, but some
items left out
Methods insufficiently
explained, Many gaps
in information
Results and discussion: Clear
and understandable
Generally clear and
understandable
Little discussion of
results
Conclusions: Implications of
results discussed, reinforce
overall massage
Implications of results
not clearly discussed
Some errors in
discussing implications
Timing: 12 min. (+3 min. for
Questions and answers).
Timing observed
Went a little over or
below time by 1 min
Significantly over or
below time (2+ min)
Poor (1)
Does not conform to
standard abstract guidelines,
very poor quality
Provides little or no
information on background
and significance
Methods are very poorly
explained
Discussion of results very
difficult to follow
No discussion of implication
of study and information
inaccurate
Presentation far too long or
too short
Generally answered
questions
Reluctantly answered
and responds poorly
to questions
Avoids audience interaction
and very rude if answering
Speaker was not fully
heard or understood
Difficult to understand
or hear
Presenters pace was
not consistent, some
repetition and
skipping important
details
Most of the
presentation was too
fast or too slow
Speaker was very difficult to
hear or understand
Speaker was too fast/too
slow
Eye contact: with audience
good
Eye contact not during
complete
presentation
Very poor eye contact
No eye contact
Dressing
Appropriate
Simple and focused
Some inappropriate
dressing
Simple but not
focused
Dressing too casual or
too flashy
Aids are poorly
prepared and not
used appropriately.
Most of the
information not
relevant to the topic
Most of the slides
were of poor quality
Dressing inappropriate for
formal presentations
Aids were not used and was
difficult to read and follow
No appropriate or relevant
information
All slides were of very poor
quality
Proper use of note: Speaker
was able to be heard and
understood
Manner of speaking:
Presenter’s conversation was
paced for ease of understanding
by audience
Visual Aids
Fair (2)
Concise but few points
missing and quality
not satisfactory
Only some
information on
background, relevance
and significance is
given
Material and Methods: Design
of experiment and methods
clearly explained.
Questions: Properly answered
and restated and summarized
when needed.
Presenter
Good (3)
Concise, complete but
quality not
satisfactory
Gives pertinent
information but some
information may be
missing
Appropriate and relevant to
topic
Some material not
relevant
Neatness and quality
Quality not
appropriate
ORAL PRESENTATION JUDGING SCORE SHEET
Name of Student:
Title of Presentation:
The oral presentation will be rated for: quality, conciseness and completeness of the abstract, content of the oral
presentation, confidence of the presenter and quality of the visual aids.
Each category will be rated as follows: 10=excellent, 9=very good, 8=good, 7=average, 6=poor, 5 and below failing.
Abstract
a. Concise
b. Complete
c. Quality
Presentation
a. Introduction: Subject and problem well introduced.
b. Material and Methods: Clearly explained.
c. Results and discussions: Clear and understandable
d. Conclusions: Reinforce overall massage
e. Timing: 12 min. (+5 min. for Questions and answers).
f. Questions: Properly answered.
Presenter
a. Proper use of note.
b. Manner of speaking
c. Eye contact with audience
d. Appropriate dressing
Visual aids
a. Simple and focused
b. Appropriate and relevant to topic
c. Neatness and quality
Overall scientific merit and quality
Your overall impression of the seminar and the student performance
Comments
Your comments will help the presenter improve his/her performance.
Please indicate your comments on the back of the sheet.
Score