Global Health Case Competition 2015
Judging Rubric: Presentation
Judge:
Total Points: **/108
Team Name:
Overall Comments:
Global Health Case
Competition Criteria
Analysis or problem
statement
Justification and
rational
Implementation plan
10-12 pts.
Exemplary
7-9 pts.
Satisfactory
4-6 pts.
0-3 pt.
Unsatisfactory
 Covers all key: shows
clear understanding of
determinants.
 Analysis utilizes
professional/scholarly
support.
 Clearly did additional
research on country and
problem.
 Steps clearly tied to all
major issues discussed in
analysis.
 Rational supported with
appropriate scholarly
resources.
 Employs a multi-faceted
plan that addresses all
major concerns.
 Is doable and sustainable.
 Is culturally appropriate.
 Identifies all appropriate
in-country resources &
contacts.
 Some analysis: misses 2-3
key points or
determinants.
 Most of analysis relies on
professional/ scholarly
resources.
 Some additional research
on country and problem.
 Misses 4 or more key
points or determinants.
 Minimal use of
professional/scholarly
resources.
 Limited additional
research on country and
problem.
 No clear analysis.
 No clear additional
research -- may just
repeat case summary.
 No integration of
professional/scholarly
resources.
 Steps outlined in proposal
clearly tied to most major
issues.
 Scholarly resources for
utilized for most of
rationale & justification.
 Employs a multi-faceted
plan that addresses most
major concerns.
 Mostly, doable and
sustainable.
 Mostly, culturally
appropriate.
 Identifies most of
appropriate in-country
resources & contacts.
 Steps outlined in proposal
not clearly tied to major
issues
 Tie between scholarly
resources and rationale &
justification is weak.
 Limited use of a multifaceted approach.
 Parts of the plan not
doable or sustainable.
 Misses some key cultural
aspects.
 Misses several important
appropriate in-country
resources & contacts.
 Weak rational; no clear
connection to analysis
 No use of scholarly
resources.
 Does not use a multifaceted approach.
 Not doable or
sustainable.
 Not culturally
appropriate.
 Does not identify the
appropriate in-country
resources & contacts.
Points
10-12 pts.
Exemplary
7-9 pts.
Satisfactory
4-6 pts.
0-3 pt.
Unsatisfactory
 The work is highly
creative.
 The ideas/
materials/methods used
are imaginative and
effective.
 There is attention to
detail.
• Novel approaches used
to good effect
 Familiar materials and
ideas have been
combined in new and
imaginative ways.
 All team member
expertise utilized.
 The work is creative.
 The ideas/materials/
methods used are
effective, but not
necessarily imaginative.
• Novel approaches used
to good effect
• There is a discernible
and interesting
focus/message/style, with
a few lapses in
execution
• The work takes some
risks in methods/style/
content
 Not very creative.
 The approach is trite and
the ideas clichéd, leading
to a flat
and predictable
performance.
 Offers little in the way of
new approaches methods
/ideas.
• Little sign of personal
voice, touch, or style
• Excessive and
incoherent use of
different materials,
techniques, ideas


 Somewhat creative.
 The ideas/materials/
methods show signs of
imagination.
 Places where ideas and
techniques are borrowed
whole.
• Novel ideas or
approaches present but
excessive, out of place or
not integrated effectively
in the work
• Time-tested recipes and
clichés are used–work is
pretty “safe”.
 No coherence OR the
work is technically very
competent and coherent,
without much
spark or insight
 Lacks a cohesive
argument, missing
more than 2 elements.
 Minimal continuity
between sections.
Global Health Case
Competition Criteria
Creativity and
Innovation
Organization and Clarity

Well organized and
structured argument
with an
introduction/thesis,
body and conclusion
Good support between
sections.

Missing one element of
argument
Most of the sections
flow together.


No clear argument, or
missing 3 or more
elements
No continuity between
sections.
Points
Global Health Case
Competition Criteria
10-12 pts.
Exemplary
 Clearly identifies those
benefiting
from the project.
 Includes any
special considerations.
 Proposes goals that
should be completely
achievable.
Feasibility, sustainability  Includes a detailed and
and acceptability of
realistic timeline for
proposal
project
implementation.
 Includes specific
opportunities
for potential sustainability
supported by the budget
items
and project activities.
Cultural
appropriateness
 Analyzes the issue with a
clear sense of scope and
context, including an
assessment of audience.
 Identifies key
shareholders.
 Thoroughly covers
cultural and community
issues.
 Questions assumptions,
addressing ethical
dimensions underlying
the issue.
 No factual errors and nounsubstantiated claims.
7-9 pts.
Satisfactory
4-6 pts.
 Clearly identifies most of
 Vaguely identifies who
those benefiting
benefits
from the project.
from the project.
 Includes most special
 Given the project design
considerations.
and
requested resources,
 Most of goals achievable.
establishes
 Most of timeline
some goals that are
appropriate and doable.
achievable
 Good coverage of specific
and some that may be
opportunities
difficult
for potential sustainability
to reach.
supported by the budget
 Indicates the length of
items
time required to
and project activities.
complete
the project.
 Mentions sustainability
but is not specific about
how it includes budget
items and activities.
 Clear inclusion of specific  Presents and explores
audience characteristics.
relevant contexts and
assumptions, although in
 Identifies most of the key
a limited way..
shareholders.
 Provides some
 Includes cultural and
consideration of
community issues.
assumptions and their
 Questions assumptions,
implications.
addressing ethical
 2 factual errors and/or
dimensions underlying
unsubstantiated claims.
the issue.
 1 factual error and/or
unsubstantiated claim.
0-3 pt.
Unsatisfactory
 There is no target
audience
identified.
 Does not establish goals
that are
supported by the project
design
and requested resources,
or goals
will be impossible to
achieve.
 Omits any timeline.
 Omits any mention of
sustainability.
 Approach to the issue is in
egocentric and sociocentric terms.
 Does not relate to other
contexts.
 Analysis is grounded in
absolutes, with little
acknowledgment of own
biases.
 Does not recognize
context and underlying
ethical implications.
 More than 2 factual
errors and/or
unsubstantiated claims.
Points
10-12 pts.
Exemplary
Global Health Case
Competition Criteria
Spelling, grammar,
citation
0-3 pt.
Unsatisfactory
1-2 errors

3-4 errors

5-6 errors

More than 6 errors

Mature & professional
language.
Appropriate attire.
Cohesion among group
members is clear.
No distracting
mannerisms such as
the use of problem
words (um), poor eye
contact, and pacing or
fidgeting.
Excellent use of word
accentuation, pitch,
tone, pace, & volume.

In general, language
does not interfere with
communication.
Errors are not
distracting or frequent,
although
there may be some
problems with more
difficult aspects of style
and voice.
Basic organization is
apparent; transitions
connect
ideas, although they
may be mechanical.
Format is appropriate
although at times
inconsistent.

Uses appropriate
language, attire.
Does not talk during
presentation except
when addressing
judging panel.
May lack confidence.
Some use of distracting
mannerisms.
Average use of word
accentuation, pitch,
tone, pace, & volume.

Uses excessive slang,
poor grammar, unclear
speech, inappropriate
attire, talking with
team members during
presentation,
Difficult to understand.
Group not cohesive.
Excessive distracting
mannerisms.
Poor use of word
accentuation, pitch,
tone, pace, & volume.





Total Points
4-6 pts.



Delivery
Professional
appearance, pace, eye
contact, and
involvement of all team
members.
7-9 pts.
Satisfactory







Points