SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form
Academic Year 2014-2015
Electronic copy of report is due June 1, 2015. Send to Undergraduate Studies
(academicassessment@sjsu.edu), with cc: to your college’s Associate Dean and college Assessment
Facilitator. List of AFs is found at http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/faculty/programs/committee/index.html>
Department: Biological Sciences
Program: BA and BS Biological Sciences
College: Science
Website: http://www.sjsu.edu/biology/
X Check here if your website addresses the University Learning Goals.
http://www.sjsu.edu/biology/assessment/program-learning-objectives/index.html
Program Accreditation (if any): NA
Contact Person and Email:
Jeff Honda (jeffrey.honda@sjsu.edu)
Date of Report:
Part A
1. List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
PLO1: Students will demonstrate the ability to formulate hypotheses and design experiments to
address a scientific question.
PLO2: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the relevant content in their concentration
as assessed through a discipline-specific assignment and/or exam.
PLO3: Students will demonstrate laboratory or field skills relevant to their concentration.
PLO4: Students will demonstrate proficiency in scientific writing skills by effectively writing an
advanced scientific paper, like a scientific literature review.
PLO5: Students will demonstrate proficiency in oral presentation skills by effectively presenting
scientific research, like a conference style research presentation.
2.
Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULGs)
The SJSU ULGs are as follows (from http://www.sjsu.edu/learninggoals/university/):
ULG1: Specialized knowledge
ULG2: Broad integrative knowledge
ULG3: Intellectual skills
ULG4: Applied knowledge
ULG5: Social and global responsibilities
The correspondence of the Biology PLOs with SJSU’s ULGS is shown in Table 1. This map was developed
by the Biological Sciences Assessment Committee.
Table 1. Map of Biology PLOs to ULGs with schedule for assessment
Biology PLO
1
2
3
4
5
Courses
Bio 155, 156
Bio 125, 135B, 160; MS 103; Micr 141
Bio 125, 160; MS 103; Micr 141L, 135L
Bio 100W
Bio 155, 156
When Assessed
AY 20-21
AY 15-16
AY 16-17
AY 18-19
AY 19-20
ULG
1, 2, 3, 4
1, 4
1, 3, 4
1, 3, 4
1, 2, 3, 4
1
3. Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses
Table 1 shows the courses in which the Biology PLOs are assessed.
4. Planning – Assessment Schedule
Table 1 shows the schedule for assessing Biology PLOs.
5. Student Experience
Students may read the Biology PLOs on our website at http://www.sjsu.edu/biology/undergraduateprograms/. The PLOs and mapping to course activities are included in the syllabi for all courses
taught in the Biological Sciences Department.
Part B
1.
Table 2. Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM students (per program and degree)
Undergraduate
Transfer
Fall 2011 Cohort: 3-Year
Graduation Rate
First-Time Freshmen
Fall 2008 Cohort: 6-Year
Graduation Rate
Program Program College
Cohort
Grad
Grad
Size
Rate
Rate
Univ.
Grad
Rate
Total
191
41.9% 45.0% 49.7%
URM
42
26.2% 26.5%
40.9%
Non-URM
130
46.2% 49.1%
All others
19
47.4% 52.8%
Program Program College
Cohort
Grad
Grad
Size
Rate
Rate
44
New Credential
First-Time Graduate
Fall 2011 Cohort: 3-Year
Graduation Rate
Fall 2011 Cohort: 3Year Graduation Rate
Univ. Program Program College Univ. Program Program College
Grad Cohort Grad
Grad
Grad Cohort Grad
Grad
Rate
Size
Rate
Rate
Rate
Size
Rate
Rate
Univ.
Grad
Rate
40.9% 47.4% 55.3%
0
/0
/0
8.3%
72
20.8% 27.6% 60.8%
7
42.9%
47.6%
55.2%
0
/0
/0
12.2%
12
8.3%
10.0% 65.2%
53.3%
27
37.0%
39.2%
54.9%
0
/0
/0
8.0%
50
22.0%
19.8% 54.2%
52.9%
10
50.0%
64.9%
56.9%
0
/0
/0
4.9%
10
30.0%
50.0% 69.4%
University targets for first-time freshmen 6-yr graduation rates set by the Chancellor’s Office are
51.6%, 47.8%, and 53.2%, for total, URM and Non-URM populations, respectively, by 2015-2016.
Our corresponding rates are 41.9%, 26.9%, and 46.2%, which fall below both current and target
University graduation rates. It should be noted that our cohort sizes may be smaller (particularly
URM students) which may skew numbers. The department’s main concern in looking at the data
focus on allowing students the opportunity to take classes when available. This has not happened
recently. Some of our major’s courses have been bottlenecked (i.e. Biol 1A, Biol 115, and Micro 101)
and filled so students would have to wait subsequent semesters to take the courses they need. To
alleviate the problem we have now limited pre-enrollment into Biol 1A only for those majors who
require the course (biology majors, forensic science majors, biochemistry majors, etc.). Undeclared
majors are put on a wait list and allowed to enroll the first day of class. We have also increased the
enrollment cap so all students can now take this course when needed regardless of major. We have
increased cap enrollments for both Biol 115 and Micro 101. Additionally, Biol 115 is sometimes
offered during the summer semester. Currently there are no bottlenecked courses. Another
concern we had was the advising process our students go through. It was out-of date and in need of
restructuring. We have now updated our website to include current information, and are working
2
with the College of Science to streamline the process for more effective advising.
Among other issues that may impact graduation success that need in-depth examination: 1) biology
is a rigorous discipline and we have seen a number of incoming students ill-prepared for our
programs; many students change their major or drop out which also may contribute low graduation
rates, and 2) student demographics are such that many students do not take full loads due to work
responsibilities.
2. Table 3. Headcounts of program majors and new students (per program and degree)
Fall 2014
New Students
Total
Continuing Students
FT Admit
New Transf
Continuing
Retn.Tranf
Trnst-Ugrd
Total
175
56
634
1
2
868
MS
12
21
33
BS
104
37
487
628
BA
53
19
116
MA
6
1
2
10
191
16
Currently the department is impacted and limits enrollment for undergraduates. Undergraduate
headcount numbers are very robust. The department has opportunity for growth if it so chooses but
continues to be limited by resources, space, and low FTES targets mandated by the College.
3. Table 4. Student: faculty ratio (SFR) and average section size (per program)
Fall 2014
Subject College
University
SFR
SFR
SFR
Lower Division
43.4
35.1
31.0
Upper Division
21.2
22.5
25.5
Graduate Division
5.7
9.6
20.8
Lower Division
Upper Division
Graduate Division
Subject
Headcount
per Section
111.6
16.9
3.4
Fall 2014
College
Headcount
per Section
48.7
24.8
5.1
University
Headcount
per Section
35.6
28.0
15.8
The department’s SFR for lower division courses is larger (43.4) than the University average (31.0) in
part due to the large Biology core class we teach which typically has 300 students in Biology 1A, 200 in
Biol 1B (both of which are typically team taught), and roughly 100 in Biol 6. This is further indicated
when one looks at subject headcount per section (111.6) which is about three times the University
average (35.6). The department’s upper division SFR (21.2) averages slightly lower than the University
average (25.5). In this case some of our lecture courses (Biol 115, 124, 107, and Micr. 101) average over
100 students; however, the lab components to some of these courses (of which there are multiple
sections) typically range from 12-18 students/section which allows for more personalized instruction.
While this indicates a lower average subject headcount per section (16.9 vs 28.0), we think this is
beneficial to students as it allows more individual, hands-on work with faculty, which is considered a
department strength.
3
4. Table 5. Percentage of tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty (per department)
Tenured/Tenure-track
Not tenure-track
Total
Dept. FTEF #
12.8
10.7
23.5
Fall 2014
Dept. FTEF %
54%
46%
100%
College FTEF %
53.7%
46.3%
100.0%
Univ. FTEF %
42.8%
57.2%
100.0%
Our department’s tenured/tenured-track department FTEF% of 54% is higher than the University overall
percent of 42.8%. While the department’s percentage is higher, we would like to increase that rate to
80% in the future. Such an increase would allow us to enhance research experiences for students and
enhance department efficiency through increased service, which is expected of these faculty vs. non
tenure-track faculty. The department FTEF number of 12.8 and 10.7 for TT/T faculty and non TT faculty,
respectively, means more when headcounts are factored in. We have 20 TT/T faculty, which indicates
that 8.2 FTEF are either used for buy-outs, FERP faculty, or faculty supported by special programs such
as MS in Biotechnology (MBT) or the Science Education programs. This shows that the department has
been productive in securing outside funding, which has allowed us to hire more part-time faculty (of
which we have 23) to help fill our course load.
Part C
5. Closing the Loop/Recommended Actions
1. During AY 2014-15, the Department of Biological Sciences established an assessment
committee to oversee the assessment process. The goal of this committee is to improve the
department’s consistency in implementing our assessment plans and reporting our data.
2. The assessment committee revised the undergraduate PLOs for the BA and BS, Biological
Sciences programs and posted these PLOs publicly. We reduced the number of PLOs from
seven to five in order to simplify the assessment process and better match our objectives. As
recommended in our program assessment feedback, we rewrote the PLOs to specifically
identify how students can demonstrate learning. We followed the request to post our PLOs on
the department website. We evaluated all department syllabi to ensure that PLOs were listed.
3. The assessment committee revised the rubrics for PLOs #1, 4 and 5. Both of these PLOs were
assessed during fall 2014 and spring 2015. Based on feedback from the fall course instructors,
we updated the assessment rubrics to reduce confusion in assigning scores to students.
4. The department has created assessment tools for PLOs #2 and 3 in all of the B.S., Biological
Sciences concentrations (Ecology & Evolution, Microbiology, Molecular, and Systems
Physiology).
5. Due to low enrollments, the Department has elected to zero-enroll the BA Life Sciences, Prep
for Teaching. We propose to do the same for the BA Biological Sciences, Prep for Teaching.
Closing these programs will reduce workload required to maintain and assess them. Each of
these programs has fewer than five students.
6. Our goal to create a curriculum map for the BA, Biological Sciences program is ongoing. The
department elected to revise that program to improve flexibility in course selection for
students pursuing the degree. Once the details of this revision are clear, we will be able to
4
develop a curriculum map and an assessment plan specific to this concentration.
6. Assessment Data
During AY 2014-15, we assessed PLO 1, PLO 4, and PLO 5 during both the spring and fall semesters.
PLO 1: Students will demonstrate the ability to formulate hypotheses and design experiments to
address a scientific question.
This PLO was assessed during Fall 2014 in Biol 155: Hypothesis Testing and Biol 156: Ecological
Sampling Design and Analyses. During Spring 2015, it was again assessed in Biol 155 (Biol 156
was not offered in Spring 2015). The rubric was updated for the spring semester, based on
feedback from the fall instructors. A total of 165 students were evaluated.
In Biol 155, the assignment used for assessment was a group project in which students design
a fictional experiment to test a hypothesis for a topic of interest. They simulate the
experiment by generating fake data in SPSS, a statistical application. The students use SPSS to
perform the correct statistical test, test the assumptions of the tests, and generate descriptive
statistics. Students then interpret the results of the analyses, make graphs, and draw
conclusions. Based on this experiment and its results, students create and deliver a
PowerPoint slide presentation. In Biol 156, this PLO was assessed with a lab exam. This exam
only met three of the five criteria on our assessment rubric (see Appendix A: Rubrics).
Table 6. Assessment of PLO 1. Values are the percent of students who earned that rating.
Relates results Understands
Uses
Understands
Thinks
to
importance
primary
importance of independently
original
of controls
literature1
hypothesis1
hypothesis
Outstanding
55.8
58.2
58.9
68.2
59.4
Good
33.3
28.5
21.9
25.2
32.1
Average
9.7
9.7
17.9
6.6
6.7
Below Average
1.2
3.6
1.3
0
1.8
1
Not evaluated in Biol 156.
PLO 4: Students will demonstrate proficiency in scientific writing skills by effectively writing an
advanced scientific paper, like a scientific literature review.
This PLO was assessed during Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 in Biol 100W: Scientific
Communication Workshop. Students were assessed on their demonstrated ability to write a
review paper of scientific literature (see Appendix A: Rubrics). A total of 159 students were
assessed (83 Fall, 76 Spring).
5
Table 7A. Assessment of PLO 4. Values are the percent of students who earned that rating.
Revision &
Grammar
Academic
Organization
Explanation &
drafting
language word
&
expression of
process
usage
development
ideas
Exemplary
43.5
15.8
34.2
34.0
33.3
Proficient
28.2
32.3
27.8
32.7
32.7
Developing
24.7
38.0
30.4
25.2
29.6
Inadequate
3.5
13.9
7.6
8.2
4.4
Table 7B. Assessment of PLO 4. Values are the percent of students who earned that rating.
Accuracy,
Evaluate info &
Synthesize info Use & cite primary &
relevance, or
sources critically for from multiple
secondary sources
timeliness
professional
sources
appropriate for
(content)
audience
assignment
Exemplary
63.0
40.4
37.8
39.1
Proficient
22.2
25.4
27.9
43.6
Developing
14.8
25.4
25.2
13.5
Inadequate
0.0
8.8
9.0
3.8
PLO 5: Students will demonstrate proficiency in oral presentation skills by effectively
presenting scientific research, like a conference style research presentation.
This PLO was assessed during Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 in Biol 155: Hypothesis Testing.
Following fall assessment, the rubric was modified to simplify assigning scores (see Appendix
A: Rubrics). This PLO was assessed with the same assignment that was used to assess PLO 1,
but with a focus on the Powerpoint presentation delivered by the students. A total of 149
students were evaluated.
Table 8. Assessment of PLO 5. Values are the percent of students who earned that rating.
Hypothesis/
Methods &
Results
Conclusions/
Overall
Statement of
controls
Future work presentation
problem
Outstanding
62.4
71.8
62.4
72.5
63.1
Excellent
11.4
14.8
30.2
22.1
26.2
Good
20.8
10.7
6.0
3.4
10.1
Average
4.0
2.7
1.3
0
0.7
Below average
1.3
0
0
2.0
0
6
7. Analysis
For the most part, student achievement of PLO 1 and 5 was “Outstanding,” indicating proficiency in
meeting those goals. This is what we would expect of students in upper division courses addressing
data analysis in the biological sciences.
There was more variation in achievement of PLO 4, with approximately 44% of students earning an
evaluation of “below average.” Biol 100W, the class in which this PLO was assessed, has several
different sections that are taught by different instructors, each of whom develop their own
requirements for the Literature Review assignment. The assessment committee noted substantial
variation in the scores assigned by different instructors. We plan to revise the rubric for this PLO to
reduce the potential for this variation and will work with the course coordinator and instructors to
improve consistency in evaluation.
8. Proposed changes and goals:
Changes:
1. For PLOs #1, 4, and 5, we propose to identify each students’ program (BA or BS) during
assessment. During AY 2014-15, we did not track student assessment data to any particular
program.
2. Update the rubric for PLO 4 to reduce the potential for variation between evaluations given
by different instructors.
Goals:
1. Assess PLO #2 during AY 2015-16. This PLO will assess students’ learning of concepts within
their concentrations. The department has concentration-specific assessment exams that will
administered in our capstone courses.
2. Evaluate syllabi to ensure that PLOs are mapped to the university learning goals (ULG). During
AY 2014-15, syllabi were checked for PLOs, but not for ULGs.
3. Complete the revision of the BA, and develop an appropriate assessment plan. The revision of
the BA will enable students to follow one of several “tracks” (such as pre-professional, preteaching, etc). The department will need to decide what concepts and skills are relevant to
this degree, and agree upon a strategy for assessing these (e.g., in which course(s) should
assessment for the BA be implemented).
7
Biological Sciences PLO#1 Rubric: Students will demonstrate the ability to formulate a hypothesis & design experiments to
address a scientific question using the scientific method* Delete categories not relevant to the assignment. Write 0 if not applicable.
Score
COMPETENCY
CRITERIA
Below Average
1
Average
2
Good
3
Outstanding
4
Observes and collects
data for Lab Notebook
□ Does not demonstrate
capacity to conduct
systematic observations &
data collection processes
□ Capacity to conduct
systematic observations
& data collection
processes must be
further developed.
□ Demonstrates capacity
to conduct systematic
observations & data
collection processes
□ Demonstrates
excellence in
conducting systematic
observations and data
collection processes
Interprets data by
relating results to the
original hypothesis
□ Does not refer results back
to the original hypothesis or
does not correctly interpret
results and draw
conclusions
□ Improvement is needed
in how the student refers
results back to original
hypothesis, interprets
results, and draws
conclusions.
□ Refers results back to
original hypothesis,
interprets results, and
draws conclusions, but
there are minor errors
or minor modifications
are needed.
□ Refers results back to
original hypothesis,
correctly interprets
results, and correctly
draws conclusions
Demonstrates the
importance of
“controls” in research
□ Does not demonstrate the
importance of controls in
research or does not use
controls in his/her study
□ The understanding of the
importance of “controls”
in research or the
controls used in his/her
study needs
improvement.
□ Demonstrates some
understanding of the
importance of “controls”
in research or the
controls used in his/her
study need minor
modification
□ Demonstrates a clear
understanding of the
importance of “controls”
in research or uses
adequate controls in
his/her study
□ Some of the required
sources were included
and cited. Connections to
the project were not
evident or sources were
not summarized well.
□ Most of the required
sources were included,
cited, summarized well,
and relevant.
□ Demonstrates some
capacity to formulate and
test a hypothesis but
□ Demonstrates capacity
to formulate and test a
hypothesis but minor
modifications are
Makes use of the
primary scientific
research literature in
his/her field
Demonstrates the
importance of
hypothesis-based
□ None of the required
sources were included.
□ Does not demonstrate the
capacity to formulate and
test a hypothesis
□ All required sources
were included, cited,
summarized well, and
relevant.
□ Demonstrates capacity
to formulate and test a
hypothesis
8
improvement is needed
research
Designs experiment to
test a hypothesis
□ Does not demonstrate the
ability to design an
experiment appropriate for
testing a specific
hypothesis. Significant
modifications are needed.
□ The experiment
designed needs
modification in order to
appropriately test a
specific hypothesis.
needed
□ Designs an experiment
appropriate for testing
a specific hypothesis
but there are minor
errors or modifications
needed
□ Designs an experiment
appropriate for testing
a specific hypothesis
*This is a modification of the rubric developed by the RISE External Evaluator based on Carol Anne M Kardash (2000) “Evaluation of an Undergraduate Research Experience: Perceptions of
Undergraduate Interns and their Faculty Mentors” Journal of Educational Psychology Vol. 92, pp. 191-201.
Additional Comments:
9
Biology PLO #4 Rubric: Writing
San Jose State University
This rubric assesses writing for the following competencies: 1) revision/draft process; 2) grammar; 3) academic language; 4) organization/overall
structure; 5) ability to explain and express ideas and concepts; 6) accuracy and understanding of scientific content; 7) ability to evaluate
information critically for a professional audience; 8) ability to synthesize information from multiple sources; and 9) ability to use and cite primary
and secondary literature. Not all competencies are evaluated at each level. The ratings correspond to grades as follows: outstanding = 90 – 100%
(A-, A, A+); good = 80 – 89% (B-, B, B+); average = 73-79% (C, C+); below average = 72% or lower (C-, D+, D, D-).
Bio 100w assignment is the Literature Review.
Competency
1. Revision or drafting
process (GE SLO 1.1, PLO 4)
Level
First year
Bio 100w
Majors
Below average (0)
Students are unable to recognize
and fix errors with prompting from
instructor.
Average (1)
Students are able to recognize and
fix errors with prompting from
instructor.
2. Grammar (GE SLO 1.3,
PLO 4)
First year
Bio 100w
Majors
Writing contains significant or
serious grammatical or spelling
errors.
Writing contains some minor
grammatical or spelling errors.
3. Academic language word
usage (GE SLO 1.2, PLO 4)
Bio 100w
Majors
Word usage is simplistic, repetitive
or inappropriate, or overused with
little to no evidence of expanded
noun phrases.*
Occasionally demonstrates use of
precise and varied words, but
generally the vocabulary is
ordinary and there is little
expansion of noun phrases.
4. Organization and
development (GE SLOs 1.1
& 1.7, PLO 4)
First year
Bio 100w
Majors
Writing is haphazard and
disjointed, with weak organization;
strategy for analysis not outlined or
outlined poorly.
The paper’s organization is loosely
planned; strategy for analysis is
discussed, but is incomplete or
vague.
5. Explanation and
expression of ideas. (GE
SLOs 1.2, 1.7, & 2, PLO 4)
First year
Bio 100w
Majors
Student is unable to explain key
ideas and concepts.
Student is able to explain some
ideas and concepts.
6. Accuracy, relevance, or
timeliness (content). (PLO
First year
Majors
Information is inaccurate,
demonstrating a poor
Some information presented is
accurate, but there are some
Good (2)
Students are able to
recognize and fix errors
with some prompting from
instructor.
Writing contains a few
minor grammatical errors,
but has few or no spelling
errors.
Adequate use of precise
and varied words, including
some specific biology
terms and expanded noun
phrases to describe
biological concepts.
The paper’s organization is
for the most part clear and
coherent; strategy for
analysis is direct,
competent, and
appropriate.
Student is able to express
and explain ideas and
concepts clearly and
effectively most of the
time.
Most information
presented is accurate.
Outstanding (3)
Students are able to recognize
and fix errors with minimal
prompting from instructor.
Writing contains no
grammatical or spelling errors.
Consistent use of precise and
varied words, including
frequent specific biology terms
and expanded noun phrases to
describe biological concepts.
The paper’s organization is
consistently clear and coherent;
strategy for analysis has depth
and may consider material from
content areas outside of main
focus of questions and goal(s) of
the review.
Student is able to consistently
express and explain ideas and
concepts clearly and effectively.
Information presented is
accurate, demonstrating a good
10
4)
7. Evaluate information
and its sources critically for
a professional audience
(GE SLOs 1.4 & 3, PLO 7)
Bio 100w
Majors
understanding of subject.
Student is unaware of criteria that
might be used to judge information
quality. Little effort is made to
examine the information located.
obvious errors or misconceptions.
Student examines information
using criteria such as authority,
credibility, relevance, timeliness,
and accuracy, but does not
consistently make good judgments
about what to keep and what to
discard.
Student identifies appropriate
sources but integrates information
imprecisely or awkwardly;
treatment of different sources is
uneven.
Citations are accurate but use of
citations suggests modest
familiarity with the literature.
8. Synthesize information
from multiple sources. (GE
SLOs 1.6 & 2, PLO 4)
Bio 100w
Majors
Student is unable to integrate
information from multiple sources
and/or discusses literature in
sequence without any synthesis.
9. Use and cite primary and
secondary sources
appropriate for the
assignment. (GE SLOs 1.2,
1.5 & 3, PLO 4)
First year
Bio 100w
Majors
Student is unable to differentiate
between primary and secondary
sources.
Student examines
information using criteria
such as authority,
credibility, relevance,
timeliness, and accuracy,
and is able to consistently
make good judgments
about what to keep and
what to discard.
Student synthesizes the
ideas and/or information
accurately and sufficiently;
treatment is even across
different sources.
Citations are accurate and
used effectively.
understanding of the subject.
Multiple and diverse sources of
information are compared and
evaluated according to specific
criteria appropriate for biology.
Student is able to match criteria
to a specific information need,
and can articulate how
identified sources relate to the
context of the discipline.
Student effectively synthesizes
information from multiple
sources, providing excellent
coverage and depth to the
paper.
Citations are accurate and
demonstrate a deep
understanding of the literature.
*Expanded noun phrases add information to nouns, e.g., “Edges are a ubiquitous aspect of human disturbance to forest landscapes.”
11
Biology PLO #5 Rubric: Presentation
The same points for all four categories on page 1 are assigned to both group members based on the slides and presentation. Points for the category on page 2 are assigned to each individual student based on his or
HYPOTHESIS OR STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
METHODS AND CONTROLS (Group Grade)
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
her oral presentation. All criteria within a category must be met to earn the points designated for that category.
SCORE
(Group Grade)
(Group Grade)
Outstanding
13
 Thorough explanation of experimental
Substantial amounts of high quality
 Reasonable conclusions
design, variables, sample size, & methods
 Clear discussion of controls or comparative
groups; all appropriate controls or
comparative groups were included, if
relevant
statistical output and graphs were
presented sufficient to address the
hypothesis.
Presentation of data was clear,
thorough, and logical.
All graphs and numerical results
were legible.
were given and strongly
supported with evidence.
 Conclusions were
compared to hypothesis
or statement of problem,
and their relevance in a
wider context was
discussed.
Logical hypothesis or statement of
problem was presented.
 Background information was relevant, but
connections were not clear.
 Most of the required sources were
included & were in the correct
format.
 Very good explanation of experimental
Sufficient amounts of good statistical
 Reasonable conclusions
design, variables, sample size, & methods
 Clear discussion of controls or comparative
groups; most controls or comparative
groups were included, if relevant
output and graphs were presented to
address the hypothesis.
Presentation of data was clear
and logical.
Most graphs and numerical
results were legible.
were given and supported
with evidence.
 Conclusions were compared to
hypothesis or statement of
problem, but their relevance
was not discussed.
 Hypothesis or statement of problem was
 Adequate explanation of experimental
Adequate amounts of reasonably good
 Reasonable conclusions
not logical.
 Background information was relevant, but
connections were not made.
 Some of required sources were
included and/or the correct format
was not used.
design, variables, sample size, & methods
but some details were missing
 Adequate discussion of controls or
comparative groups; some significant
controls or comparative groups were lacking
statistical output and graphs were
presented to address the hypothesis.
Presentation of data was not
entirely clear.
Some graphs and numerical
results were legible.
 Hypothesis or statement of
 Many details missing about experimental
Some statistical output and graphs were
design, variables, sample size, & methods
 Controls or comparative groups not
adequately described; some appropriate
controls or groups were missing
 Experimental design doesn’t completely
address the hypothesis.
lacking or not fully sufficient to address
the hypothesis.
Presentation of data was
included, but unclear or difficult
to comprehend.
Few graphs and numerical
results were legible.
Results are not yet available or
reproducible.
Presentation of statistical output and
graphs was missing.
None of the graphs or numerical
results were legible.
 Logical hypothesis or statement of
problem was presented clearly.
 Background information was
relevant & summarized well.
 Connections to previous literature
& broader issues were clear.
 All required sources were included
& were in the correct format.

Very Good
12
Good
11
Average

10

Below
Average
8
(Group Grade)


problem was not logical and was
not necessarily supported.
Some relevant background information
was included, but not connected.
Few of the required sources were
included and/or the correct format
was not used.
Hypothesis and/or statement of problem
was inappropriate or was missing.
Little or no background information was
included or connected.
 Experimental design, variables, sample size,
& methods missing.
 Serious lack of controls or comparative
groups.
 Experimental design doesn’t test the
hypothesis.
were given.
 Conclusions were not
compared to the
hypothesis or statement
of problem, and their
relevance was not
discussed.
 Conclusions were given.
 Little connection with the
hypothesis or statement
of problem was apparent.
 Conclusions were missing.
 There was no connection
with the hypothesis or
statement of problem.
12
SCORE
OVERALL PRESENTATION & HANDLING QUESTIONS
(Based on individual’s portion of the presentation)
Outstanding
13
Very Good
12
Good
11
Average
10





Demonstrates a very strong knowledge of the research project
Speaks clearly, naturally and with enthusiasm; makes eye contact
Comfortably uses visual aids to enhance presentation
Answers difficult questions clearly and succinctly
Presentation is consistently clear and logical.





Demonstrates a good knowledge of the research project
Speaks clearly and naturally; makes eye contact
Uses visual aids to enhance the presentation
Answers most questions
Presentation is clear for the most part, but not consistently





Demonstrates some knowledge of the research project
Reads from the poster (slide or script) some of the time
Uses some visual aids to enhance the presentation
Has some difficulty answering challenging questions
Presentation is generally unclear and inconsistent.





Demonstrates a poor knowledge of the research project
Reads from the poster (slide or script) most of the time
Does not use the available visual aid to enhance presentation effectively
Has difficulty answering questions
Presentation is unclear.

Does not demonstrate any knowledge of the research
project


Reads from the poster (slide or script) all the time
Does not use the available visual aid to enhance
presentation
Below
Average
8


Does not understand questions
Presentation is very confusing.
Modified from the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) and the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) Judging Handbook.
13