POSTER BRIEFING
Academic Year
2024-25 (SEMESTER A)
Degree Programme Master of Public Health
Module Code
7LMS2059
Module Title
Project Report
Assignment Title
Poster Presentation & Assessment
General Information
Weighting: 20%
Submission Deadlines: You are required to submit an electronic copy (PowerPoint format only) via
Canvas by 23:00 on Sunday 8th December 2024. Posters will be presented via MS Teams during the
following period Monday 9th to 13th December 2024. The 1st assessor will liaise with the 2nd assessor
and contact you in order to send a teams’ invite with a date and time for your poster presentation and
assessment. The 1st assessor will create a 30-minute poster assessment slot for each student.
However, the assessment is 20minutes and the added 10 minutes is to sort out technical issues if any
occur. Please make sure you are in the ‘waiting room’ area 5 to 10 minutes in advance of your
allocated slot.
Poster Presentation
A PowerPoint template is provided for your poster on canvas if you want to use it. It also has
information about what elements are required, size of fonts etc., and what information should be
contained within them, even if you design your own. In addition, see preparing your poster on canvas.
Please remember that your supervisor is not your co-author – unless you are planning to use the
poster for another event.
The assessment of your poster will consist of two academic staff members (neither of which will be
your supervisor) asking you questions about your poster and research project. They will introduce
themselves and then indicate to you that they are ready to start. The assessment is likely to last about
20 minutes: 10 minutes for your poster presentation and 10 minutes for assessor’s questions and
feedback (which you can feedforward into your project report). Aim to present using your poster as
your prompt. Prepare for your presentation by practising (and timing) your presentation with the poster
in front of you.
1
This is a methodological poster assessment. Be prepared to answer questions about these aspects
of your research project; background, literature review, methodology and results/conclusions. You
can have a paper or electronic copy of your draft project report with you if you want; you may want to
check things in it or provide detail that is not on the poster. Please answer the questions put to you;
do not tell the assessor everything you can remember about your project!!
It is possible that staff members, other than the assessors, may observe for quality assurance
purposes. Please be aware of this possibility and always conduct yourself in a professional manner.
Referencing
In this assessment you are expected to include citations within the text on the poster. A reference list
should also be included, and this can be in smaller text than the main body to save space on the
poster. Use the numeric referencing style for your poster which can be found here:
https://herts.instructure.com/courses/61421/pages/referencing-numeric-or-vancouver-referencingstyle-worked-example
NOTE: PRESENTATIONS WILL BE RECORDED
MARKING CRITERIA: The pass mark for the poster presentation and assessment is 50%.
Poster and presentation (60%)
20%: Poster style/format
20%: Quality of poster information
20%: Student presentation/delivery
Questions and answers (interview) (40%)
Background
Aim/research questions
Research design/method
Data sources and/or sampling procedures
Data analyses/synthesis and presentation of results.
2
Marking Grid
Grade
Descriptor
Little or
nothing of
merit
Clear fail
Clear fail
Marginal Fail
Clear Pass
Good
Very good
Excellent
Outstanding
19-point numeric
grade
0 / 10
25
32 / 35 / 38
42 / 45 / 48
52 / 55 / 58
62 / 65 / 68
72 / 77
85
95
No
discernable
structure.
Very
difficult to
follow.
Many
grammatic
al errors.
Many
spelling
mistakes.
Complete
lack of
clarity. No
attempt at
academic
presentatio
nal style or
standard.
Chaotic,
illogical
structure.
Frequent
grammatical
and spelling
errors. Poor
fluency.
Difficult to
understand.
No use of
visual aids
where
appropriate.
Little attempt
to engage
with an
academic
style.
Limited or
poorly
conceived
structure.
Numerous
grammatical
and spelling
errors.
Limited or
poor attempt
to use visual
aids. An
immature
approach but
an attempt to
engage with
an academic
style.
An acceptable
attempt at a
logical
structure but
flawed in
places;
perhaps
repetitive or
poorly
focused.
Some errors
in grammar
and spelling.
Some
appropriate
use of visual
aids. Difficult
to follow in
parts or a
poor flow of
ideas.
A logical
structure
which can be
easily
followed but
some
disjointed
material or
lack of focus.
Grammar and
spelling
generally
correct. Visual
aids used to
support the
content.
Recognisable
academic
style.
A logical, wellorganised
style. Easy to
follow with
reinforcement
rather than
repetition.
Good
grammar and
spelling.
Visual aids
used to
enhance
communicatio
n. Good
academic
style that
requires little
correction.
A logical,
fluent, wellorganised
style which
clearly leads
the audience
through the
material
facilitating a
clear
argument.
Very minor
grammatical /
spelling or
structural
errors.
Visual aids
used to
support the
argument.
An excellent
academic
style, which
clearly
presents
contrasting
perspectives
and
arguments.
No
grammatical /
spelling or
structural
errors. Visual
aids used as
integral parts
of the
argument.
An
outstanding
piece of
work.
Outstanding
presentation
and clarity.
Polished
grammar and
accurate
spelling.
Ideas and
arguments
presented
persuasively
with
exceptional
clarity.
General
design,
structure
and style:
Logical
development
of content;
fluency;
logical
structure;
appropriate
academic
style; clarity
of poster/
resources;
spelling;
grammar;
use of
appropriate
visual aids.
L
W%
7
10
3
Referencing
: Use of
recommende
d system;
referencing
throughout
the
presentation;
accuracy of
citations;
inclusion of
reference
list.
7
5
Little or no
referencing
within
presentatio
n.
Inappropria
te or no
reference
list
included.
Limited
attempt to
use either the
recommende
d system or
an
alternative.
An attempt to
use the
recommende
d system but
error-strewn
and
inconsistently
applied.
An attempt to
use the
recommended
system but
numerous
inaccuracies
and
inconsistencie
s.
Recommende
d system used
with some
inaccuracies
and
inconsistencie
s.
Recommende
d system used
with a few
minor errors.
Recommend
ed system
used and
almost fully
conforms,
with very
minor errors.
Recommend
ed system
used and fully
conforms,
with the
exception of
very minor
punctuation
errors.
Faultless use
of
referencing
to enhance
the work.
Use of
literature:
Relevance of
literature;
appropriate
depth/breadt
h and
integration of
literature.
7
10
Little or no
evidence of
literature
being
referred to.
Much of
the
literature
used
irrelevant
to topic or
inappropria
te sources.
Limited
attempt to
refer to
literature, or
to use
relevant
sources.
An attempt to
use literature,
which may
lack
relevance
and is
descriptive at
best.
Some use of
relevant
literature,
although
primarily
descriptive
and lacking
depth.
A range of
relevant
literature
used, some
with
appropriate
depth/breadth.
A range of
relevant
literature used
to support the
argument,
generally with
appropriate
depth/breadth.
A wide range
of relevant
literature
skilfully used
to enhance
the argument.
All literature
is considered
to an
appropriate
depth/breadth
.
A full range of
relevant
literature
used. Highly
developed
critical
approach to
integration of
literature,
excellent
depth and
breadth.
Outstanding
use of
literature to
construct a
fully
substantiated
argument.
Content/
knowledge:
Relevance;
accuracy;
addressed to
the topic;
appropriate
depth/breadt
h; evidence
of
understandin
g.
7
20
Little or no
knowledge
and
understand
ing evident.
No attempt
to go
beyond
lecture
content.
Little or no
evidence of
Few key
points
addressed.
Much
irrelevance.
Many errors.
Inappropriate
level. Limited
evidence of
understandin
g.
Very basic
coverage for
the required
level showing
superficial
understandin
g. May
contain
irrelevant
material
and/or have
significant
Basic
coverage for
the required
level showing
an attempt to
address the
subject.
Significant
gaps and
errors but
includes
>40% of the
Presentation
is directed at
the topic using
mostly
relevant
material.
There may be
gaps or parts
of the
argument not
developed at
the
Presentation
clearly
addresses the
topic. Good
understanding
of the material
with coverage
at the
appropriate
level. Some
minor gaps
and/or errors.
Presentation
clearly
addresses
the topic
throughout.
Very good
understandin
g of the
material, fully
meeting
expectations
at this level.
Excellent
coverage and
understandin
g, focusing
precisely on
the topic.
Depth and
breadth of
content is
excellent.
Fully
addresses
the topic with
exceptional
knowledge
and
understandin
g, exceeding
the level
expected.
4
independe
nt study.
Synthesis,
evaluation,
and/or
reflection:
Critical
analysis;
integration of
evidence;
drawing of
conclusions.
7
30
Wholly
descriptive.
Little or no
evidence of
analysis /
critical
evaluation
and/or
reflection.
No
conclusion
s.
Limited
evidence of
synthesis,
evaluation or
reflection.
Unfounded or
irrelevant
conclusions.
gaps and
errors with
less than
40% of the
expected
factual
content.
Predominantl
y descriptive
account with
unsupported
or weak
conclusions.
expected
factual
content.
appropriate
level but an
overall
understanding
is shown.
Overly
descriptive but
with some
attempt to
evaluate/refle
ct. Some
attempt to
draw
conclusions,
although
these may
lack support
and
reasoning.
Some
analysis of
evidence or
reflection with
critique,
resulting in
the drawing of
some
appropriate
conclusions.
5
No significant
gaps or
errors.
Clear critical
analysis or
reflection,
resulting in
appropriate
conclusions.
Minor aspects
not fully
developed.
Consistent
critical
approach, all
major
aspects
include
appropriate
analysis or
reflection and
result in
substantiated
conclusions.
Evidence of a
critically
evaluative or
reflective
approach
throughout
the report,
with relevant
and insightful
conclusions.
Exceptional
level of
evaluation or
reflection,
with thorough
critical
analysis,
justified and
evidenced
conclusions.
Delivery:
Timing and
pace;
engagement
with
audience;
vocal
projection
and
vocabulary;
familiarity
with material,
confidence in
delivery.
7
5
Little or no
attempt to
engage the
audience.
Vocal
delivery is
incoherent.
Complete
lack of
familiarity
with
material; all
content
read
directly
from
poster.
Delivery fails
to engage
the audience.
Vocal
delivery fails
to project
basic points.
Over-reliant
on notes to
such an
extent that
knowledge of
the topic is
not
conveyed.
Presentation
is over 20%
from time
allocated.
Delivery
lacks
engagement
with the
audience.
Vocal
delivery
projects
basic
information,
though may
be
excessively
slow or
rushed.
Lacks
professional
vocabulary.
Heavy
reliance on
notes.
Presentation
is within 20%
of time
allocated.
Some attempt
to engage
with the
audience.
Vocal delivery
projects key
points, though
may be slow
or rushed.
Attempts to
use some
professional
vocabulary.
Some reading
from notes or
poster.
6
Delivery
engages
audience with
key points.
Vocal delivery
is clear and
well-paced in
parts, there
may be
hesitations.
Uses
appropriate
professional
vocabulary at
times. Little
use of notes.
Delivery is
generally
engaging.
Vocal delivery
is clear and
well-paced,
with minor
inconsistencie
s. Generally
uses
professional
vocabulary.
Notes only for
prompts.
Familiar with
and able to
elaborate on
poster.
Delivery is
engaging
throughout.
Vocal
delivery is
clear and
well-paced.
Consistent
professional
vocabulary.
No use of
notes, able to
explain and
expand on
poster.
Delivery fully
engages and
educates
audience
throughout.
Vocal
delivery is
fluent and
articulate.
Fully familiar
with material.
Delivery
educates and
inspires
audience.
Exceptional
and
professional
vocal
delivery.
Familiar with
wider related
material.
Response to
questioning
7
20
Little or no
relevant
information
given in
response to
very basic
questions.
Little ability
shown to explain
basic concepts
underlying the
presentation.
Either lacking
detail or some
prompting was
required to fully
explain basic
questioning.
An ability to
explain very basic
concepts
underlying the
presentation.
Minimal
confidence
displayed.
7
Some knowledge
and
understanding
showing an ability
to answer the
question in a
broad context.
Good knowledge
and
understanding
enabling the full
answer to be
directed
specifically at the
question.
Demonstrates
very good in
depth knowledge
and
understanding
which enables
the subtle
aspects of the
question to be
answered.
Excellent
response which
comprehensively
covers complex
questioning.
Outstanding
response which
comprehensively
covers complex
questioning.