2014-2015 Annual Program Assessment Report
Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator, the Associate Dean of your College, and to james.solomon@csun.edu, director of
assessment and program review, by September 30, 2015. You may, but are not required to, submit a separate report for each program, including graduate degree
programs, which conducted assessment activities, or you may combine programs in a single report. Please identify your department/program in the file name for
your report.
College: Science and Mathematics
Department: Chemistry and Biochemistry
Program: BA/BS/MS
Assessment liaison: Thomas Minehan
1.
Please check off whichever is applicable:
A. ___√_____ Measured student work.
B. ____√____ Analyzed results of measurement.
C. ________ Applied results of analysis to program review/curriculum/review/revision.
2.
Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). On a separate sheet, provide a brief overview of this year’s assessment activities, including:
 an explanation for why your department chose the assessment activities (measurement, analysis, and/or application) that it enacted
 if your department implemented assessment option A, identify which program SLOs were assessed (please identify the SLOs in full), in which classes
and/or contexts, what assessment instruments were used and the methodology employed, the resulting scores, and the relation between this year’s
measure of student work and that of past years: (include as an appendix any and all relevant materials that you wish to include)
 if your department implemented assessment option B, identify what conclusions were drawn from the analysis of measured results, what changes to the
program were planned in response, and the relation between this year’s analyses and past and future assessment activities
 if your department implemented option C, identify the program modifications that were adopted, and the relation between program modifications and
past and future assessment activities
 in what way(s) your assessment activities may reflect the university’s commitment to diversity in all its dimensions but especially with respect to
underrepresented groups
 any other assessment-related information you wish to include, including SLO revision (especially to ensure continuing alignment between program
course offerings and both program and university student learning outcomes), and/or the creation and modification of new assessment instruments
Preview of planned assessment activities for next year. Include a brief description and explanation of how next year’s assessment will contribute to a
continuous program of ongoing assessment.
3.
2. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). Provide a brief overview of this year’s assessment activities.
The following assessment activities took place this year:
•Measure Student Work
a. Assess basic knowledge in general, analytical, and biochemistry (SLO1) using standardized exam questions in course finals.
b. Implemented a signature assignment for longitudinal assessment of knowledge (SLO1) in the gateway (Chem 321) and
capstone (Chem 401) courses
c. Assess graduate students’ scientific oral communication abilities in literature and thesis seminars, relevant to SLO2m:
Organize and communicate scientific information clearly and concisely, both verbally and in writing
•Analyze Results of Measurement
d. An analysis of student performance trends in general chemistry, analytical chemistry, and biochemistry was undertaken.
e. The results of the signature assignment were reviewed and suggestions for changing questions in that assignment have
been made.
f. Review evidence pertaining to SLO2m: Organize and communicate scientific information clearly and concisely, both
verbally and in writing.
The department chose these activities so as to 1.) move forward with a longitudinal assessment program, which was previously
planned but had yet to be implemented, and 2.) encourage faculty to continue doing assessment in their courses each year so as
to identify trends over multiple semesters and weaknesses in student comprehension that need to be addressed at the individual
course level and in the program as a whole.
Option A: Measure Student Work
SLO 1: Assess basic knowledge in the following areas of chemistry: general chemistry, chemistry,
biochemistry, and analytical chemistry, both at the individual course level and for the program as a whole.
SLO’s addressed:
2
a. 1. Assess basic knowledge in general chemistry (SLO1) using standardized exam questions in course finals. Alignment
with core competencies: critical thinking, quantitative literacy.
General Chemistry Assessment: Students taking Chem 101 in fall 2014 and spring 2014 were assessed using a 24
question pre- and post-test taken from the course textbook testbank. The assessments were administered either in
class via a paper exam or online via Moodle quiz. For fall 2014, 47 students took the pre-test and 28 students took the
post-test; with a benchmark level of 66% of questions answered correctly, 15% of students performed at or above
benchmark for the pre-test and 54% of students performed at or above benchmark for the post-test. The class average
also improved 15% from pre-test to post-test. For spring 2015, 66 students took the pre-test and 55 students took the
post test; whereas only 3% of students scored at or above benchmark for the pre-test, 29% of students performed at or
above benchmark for the post test. Furthermore, the class average improved from 41% to 60% from pre-test to posttest.
For students taking Chem 102, in spring 2015, the 70-question ACS standardized exam in General Chemistry was
administered at the end of the semester, and 69 students took the exam. 14% of the students scored 66% or higher,
and the class average was 50%, which was below the composite norms average by about 10%. The class average
compared with the Composite Norms is at the 31st percentile. In summer 2015, 18 questions from the ACS
standardized exam in General Chemistry were administered as a pre- and post test to 51 students. For the pre-test, 2%
of the class scored at or above the benchmark (66%); for the post-test, 12% of the students scored at or above the
benchmark. The class average on the assessment also improved from 29% to 43%.
d. Analysis of the Results of Measurement
Our general chemistry courses are doing a good job in improving student comprehension of the foundational concepts
of chemistry. For both Chem 101 and Chem 102, students are clearly improving in their understanding of the material
as they proceed through the courses, with significant gains evident in both the class average on the assessments and in
the number of students achieving the benchmark level of performance. Nonetheless, the results from the ACS
standardized exam given at the completion of Chem 102 in the spring semester indicates that there is still much room
for improvement; the majority of our students are still performing below the national averages. Although it is not
desirable to “teach to the exam”, it may be helpful for general chemistry instructors to review the ACS exam questions
and identify general topics which the students seem to have more difficulty with. This activity may result in changing
the emphasis on some topics covered in the corresponding lecture course.
3
b. 2. Assess basic knowledge in analytical chemistry (SLO1) using standardized exam questions and perform qualitative
and quantitative analysis (SLO6). Alignment with core competencies: critical thinking, quantitative literacy.
The analytical chemistry courses Chem 321 and Chem 422 are taken in sequence by all Chemistry BS, Chemistry BA and
Biochemistry BS majors. Thus, the majority of students in Chem 422 in Fall 2014 took Chem 321 in Spring 2014. During
Fall 2014, the same 5-question assessment poll was given on the first day of class in both Chem 321 and Chem 422; the
questions were taken from an ACS standardized exam in analytical chemistry. In Chem 321, of the 30 students polled,
20% of the students obtained the benchmark score of 3/5 or better. In Chem 422, of the 26 students polled, 50% of the
students obtained a score of 3/5 or better.
d. Analysis of the Results of Measurement
The results indicate that students learn the material from Chem 321 and seem to perform better on the ACS questions
after having taken the course. Selection should be considered, as the only students taking Chem 422 successfully
passed Chem 321 and the students that did not pass Chem 321 were not assessed. The study performed was pseudolongitudinal (the same set of students was not used). However, we plan on tracking the Chem 321 students through
Chem 422 in future semesters to provide a fully longitudinal study as students progress through the major.
c. 3. Assess basic knowledge in biochemistry (SLO1) using standardized exam questions. Alignment with core
competencies: critical thinking, quantitative literacy.
Chem 464 is a one-semester course in biochemistry taken primarily by non-majors; Chem 462 is the second-semester
of a two-semester biochemistry course (Chem 461 and Chem 462) taken by biochemistry majors. In Spring 2015, 37
students in Chem 464 were administered a 5-question pretest on the first day of class, with the questions taken
primarily from the ACS standardized exam in biochemistry; the same 5 questions were also included on the final exam.
The average score for the pre-test was 1.67/5, whereas the average for the same questions on the final exam was
3.23/5. For Chem 462, 21 students were administered 10 questions from the ACS standardized exam in biochemistry at
the end of the course. 81% of the students in this course achieved the benchmark level of performance (6/10 questions
answered correctly) or higher in this assessment. This compared favorably to the results of the same assessment given
in previous years: 45% at benchmark or higher for spring 2012 and 64% at benchmark or higher for spring 2012.
4
d. Analysis of the Results of Measurement
In Chem 464, it is evident that students are significantly improving in their knowledge of biochemistry from the pretest to the post-test: the class average on the assessment questions almost doubled. In Chem 462, for the 10 ACS
questions used for assessment, this was the best student performance with respect to the benchmark level in recent
years. One suggestion to allow comparison of our students’ performance with national averages is to administer the
entire ACS standardized exam in biochemistry on the last day of class, time permitting. This has been a useful
comparison for general chemistry instructors and organic chemistry instructors, allowing them to gauge where our
students stand with respect to others assessed across the nation in the same subject area
b. Signature Assignment Creation and Administration: twenty multiple-choice questions from all subdisciplines of
chemistry (general, organic, inorganic, analytical, physical, and biochemistry) were assembled to create an assignment
with the input of the department faculty (see appendix A). Although this assessment has now been implemented into
Moodle, for the 2014-2015 academic year an in-class paper exam/scantron was given in Chem 321 (Analytical
Chemistry I, sp 2015) and Chem 401 (Inorganic Chemistry, sp 2015). The assignment was administered to 51 students in
Chem 321 (31 majors and 20 non-majors) and 42 students in Chem 401 (majors and “unclassified” graduate students
who would like to demonstrate proficiency in inorganic chemistry).
•Results of assessment: In Chem 321, the average score for the non-majors who completed the assignment was 7.3
correct out of 20. The average score for chemistry and biochemistry majors was 7.9 correct out of 20. For Chem 401,
the average score for all of the students taking the exam was 8.4 correct out of 20. While there is a better average
performance of the students in Chem 401 than in Chem 321, the difference between Chem 321 majors and Chem 401
students is quite small (0.5 points) and this was an unexpected result.
We were able to identify a subset of the questions that the students had the most difficulty with: #2, 4, 11, 17-20.
Numbers 17-19 deal with concepts in inorganic chemistry that the students were most recently exposed to. Question
number 2 had a typo that may have led to some confusion and thus the high rate of incorrect answers. Questions 4, 11,
and 20 deal with fundamental concepts introduced in general and organic chemistry.
5
e. Analysis of the Results of Measurement
The small difference in the average performance of Chem majors in Chem 321 (gateway course) and students in Chem
401 (capstone course) is alarming. Since this is the first semester such an assignment has been given, there are no
previous data to compare to. In discussion of the results with department faculty members, it was suggested that
some of the questions be revised (including the correct/incorrect answer options) to further clarify what is being asked
(question #2 and #4) and this will take place before the assessment is implemented again this year. Beyond, this, the
results indicate that our students are struggling with concepts not only encountered in upper division courses
(questions 17-19), but also with foundational knowledge related to molecular structure, acid-base chemistry, and
orbital theory (questions 4, 11, and 20). Faculty have suggested that students may not be motivated to take the
assessment as seriously as course exams, since it is not directly impacting their course grade. A solution to this
“motivation” problem that has been put forward is to provide “bonus” points to all students who take the exam, and
extra bonus points for those performing above a certain benchmark level. If the students see the assessment as
positively impacting their grade, they are more likely to put in the effort to do as well as they can.
These results are very useful for instructors in our lower division classes (especially Chem 101/Chem 102) and upper
division classes in terms of identifying the challenging topics that our students struggle with throughout the program.
It is anticipated that, after reflection on these results, our department faculty will direct more attention to these
problem areas in their respective courses.
d. c. Assess graduate students’ scientific oral communication abilities in literature and thesis seminars, relevant to
SLO2m: Organize and communicate scientific information clearly and concisely, both verbally and in writing. Alignment
with core competencies: oral communication, information literacy.
The oral presentation rubric developed in the department of chemistry and biochemistry (see appendix) was used to
assess the literature and thesis seminars given by 12 MS chemistry students in the 2014-2015 academic year. The
scoring rubric has five categories: organization, understanding of scientific content, style/delivery, use of visual aids,
and ability to answer questions. Performance in each category could be rated with a score of 0-20. The rubric provided
descriptions for excellent (16-20 points), good (11-15 points), marginal (6-10 points), and inadequate (0-5 points)
performance. Faculty attending the seminar filled out the rubrics and forwarded them to the seminar coordinator. The
6
seminar coordinator then tabulated the results for each category and an average score for literature and thesis
seminars was obtained.
•Results for 2014-2015: For the five literature seminars, the average score for the category of organization was
17.2/20; the average score for the category of understanding of scientific content was 16.6/20; the average score for
the category of style and delivery was 16.3/20; the average score for the category of use of visual aids was 16.6/20;
and the average score for the category of ability to answer questions was 16.2/20. The total score for the literature
seminars was 82.9/100. For the seven thesis seminars, the average score for the category of organization was 19.0/20;
the average score for the category of understanding of scientific content was 17.0/20; the average score for the
category of style and delivery was 16.3/20; the average score for the category of use of visual aids was 17.3/20; and
the average score for the category of ability to answer questions was 15.7/20. The total score for the thesis seminars
was 85.3/100.
For comparison, results from the 2013-2014 academic year are also provided: for the nine literature seminars, the
average score for the category of organization was 16.8/20; the average score for the category of understanding of
scientific content was 15.6/20; the average score for the category of style and delivery was 16.6/20; the average score
for the category of use of visual aids was 16.9/20; and the average score for the category of ability to answer questions
was 14.4/20. The total score for the literature seminars was 80.3/100. For the seven thesis seminars, the average score
for the category of organization was 17.6/20; the average score for the category of understanding of scientific content
was 17.1/20; the average score for the category of style and delivery was 16.7/20; the average score for the category
of use of visual aids was 17.2/20; and the average score for the category of ability to answer questions was 16.0/20.
The total score for the thesis seminars was 84.6/100.
f. Analysis of the Results of Measurement
As can be seen, the overall scores for both literature and thesis seminars increased during the 2014-2015 academic
year as compared to the 2013-2014 academic year. In both years, the thesis seminar grades are higher than the
literature seminar grades. The results indicate that, on the whole, graduate students are doing well in their oral
seminars, since the average scores in most categories are in the 17-18 range. The weakest category tends to be the
ability to answer questions. It should be noted that one student failed the literature seminar each year for the 20132014 and 2014-2015 academic years, and so the scores are fairly good for the literature seminars considering that is
the case.
7
Another useful comparison to assess student performance is to determine whether the quality and content of the
students’ seminars improved between their literature presentation and thesis seminar. The following is a survey of
average results from the 7 students who defended their theses in the 2014-2015 academic year: Organization
(literature)=17.4, (thesis)=19.0; understanding of scientific content (literature)=16.0, (thesis)=17.0; style and delivery
(literature)=16.5, (thesis)=16.3; use of visual aids (literature)=17.4, (thesis)=17.3; ability to answer questions
(literature)=14.4, (thesis)=15.7; total (literature)=81.7, (thesis)=85.3.
These data show that the graduate students who presented their thesis seminars over the past year showed definite
improvement in the overall quality of their presentation compared to their literature smeinars (which were presented
at least one semester prior to their thesis seminar). Interestingly, the “style and delivery” and “use of visual aids”
categories showed no significant change. Again, the weakest category is the ability to answer questions. Perhaps a
useful suggestion to improve performance in this category is to have the student give their practice presentations
before an audience consisting not just of the individual’s research group students and professor, but rather including
students and/or professors from other research groups and subdisciplines, so that a broad variety of questions about
their literature and thesis topic may be encountered prior to the actual seminar.
3.
Preview of planned assessment activities for next year. Include a brief description and explanation of how next year’s assessment will contribute to a
continuous program of ongoing assessment.
In the next year we plan to continue our assessment of student subject knowledge (SLO1) in individual courses as well as
throughout the program through our signature assignment administered in the gateway and capstone courses. For 2015-2016, we
will also focus our efforts on assessment of our laboratory courses to evaluate SLO’s 4-6 (4: work effectively and safely in a
laboratory environment, including the ability to follow experimental chemical procedures and maintain a proper lab notebook; 5:
effectively utilize modern chemical instrumentation to obtain data and perform research; 6: perform qualitative and quantitative
chemical analysis). We will be encouraging our lab instructors to utilize our customizable lab notebook rubric for notebook
evaluations. We will also be obtaining useful data on student learning from our upper division labs that involve quite a bit of
chemical analysis (Chem 321, Chem 422, Chem 411) and the use of chemical instrumentation (Chem 321, Chem 422, Chem 411
and Chem 433).
8
Appendix A: Longitudinal Assessment Assignment, Revised 2015
1. Which best represents a step in the mechanism for the saponification of methyl acetate?
2. A mixture of the following four compounds is dissolved in diethyl ether and shaken with a 2M NaOH solution.
Which compound(s) remain in the organic (ether) phase?
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
A, B and D
B and C
B, C, and D
B and D
3. The correct chair conformation of the following structure is:
4. Which of the following molecules are expected to have a net dipole moment?
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
BF3
CCl4
CH2O
CH4
Useful Information:
Group
pKa
Arg Sidechain
12.5
Asp Sidechain
3.7
Glu Sidechain
4.3
Lys Sidechain
10.5
His Sidechain
6.0
Pepide Amine Group
8.0
Peptide Carboxylate Group
3.4
5. For the dipeptide shown below (Glu-Ala), which structure represents the most abundant form at
physiological pH (pH = 7.4)?
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
10
6. For the dipeptide in question 1 above, what is the overall charge at pH = 7.4?
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
-1
+1
0
-2
7. You are given a solution containing a mixture of two dipeptides, Glu-Ala and Val-Ala (nonionic
structures shown below). You have access to an anion exchange chromatography column, a cation
exchange chromatography column, a pH = 7.4 buffer, a pH = 4.0 buffer, a pH = 9.0 buffer, and a
chromatography system with a fraction collector. Which purification strategy below would be best for
separating the two dipeptides into two different flasks using chromatography?
Glu-Ala
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Val-Ala
Dilute the solution containing Glu-Ala and Val-Ala into the pH 4.0 buffer, load it to the anion
exchange column. Elute the column first with pH 7.4 buffer collecting one fraction, then with pH
9.0 buffer collecting a second fraction.
Dilute the solution containing Glu-Ala and Val-Ala into the pH 9.0 buffer, load it to the anion
exchange column. Elute the column first with pH 7.4 buffer collecting one fraction, then with pH
4.0 buffer collecting a second fraction.
Dilute the solution containing Glu-Ala and Val-Ala into the pH 4.0 buffer, load it to the cation
exchange column. Elute the column first with pH 7.4 buffer collecting one fraction, then with pH
9.0 buffer collecting a second fraction.
Dilute the solution containing Glu-Ala and Val-Ala into the pH 9.0 buffer, load it to the cation
exchange column. Elute the column first with pH 4.0 buffer collecting one fraction, then with pH
7.4 buffer collecting a second fraction.
11
8. Which of the four dipeptides below would be expected to be the most soluble in aqueous solution at pH
= 12.0? Note: for uniformity, the dipeptides are depicted in their nonionic forms, but your answer should
be based on the appropriate states of ionization that would be adopted by the ionizable groups at pH =
12.0.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
9. You desire quantitative information about a protein sample of unknown concentration and decide to use
a dye-binding assay. You obtain the standard curve data shown below. A 10 L aliquot of your protein
sample is diluted to 1.0 mL with the appropriate assay buffer and the absorbance measured, giving a
visible absorbance of 0.34. What is the protein concentration of the original protein solution?
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
0.35 mg/mL
35 mg/mL
0.68 mg/mL
33 mg/mL
12
10. Which solution should be mixed with 50.0 mL of 0.050 M HF to make an effective buffer?
(A)
50.0 mL of 0.10 M NaOH
(B)
25.0 mL of 0.10 M NaOH
(C)
50.0 mL of 0.050 M NaOH
(D)
25.0 mL of 0.050 M NaOH
11. In the dissociation of a monoprotic weak acid in aqueous solutions, HA, which leads to the assumption that
[H+] ≈ [A-]?
(A)
The autoprotolysis of water is the dominant source of H+
(B)
The concentration of the acid is sufficiently high such that the dissociation of the acid is the dominant
source of [H+]
(C)
The concentration of the acid has no effect on the approximation; [H+] is always approximately equal to
[A-]
12. The confidence interval for a set of measurements represents for a defined confidence level that
(A)
The true value lies within a certain range about the mean value
(B)
The results from two different methods will agree with each other
(C)
The variances of two different methods will agree with each other
(D)
An experimental value lies within a certain range about the mean value
13. Which choice is not a requirement of a primary standard solid?
(A)
Its reactions must be known and stoichiometric
(B)
It can be dried to remove surface moisture
(C)
Its purity must be accurately known
(D)
It must have a low formula weight
14. Glass pH electrodes must be soaked in water prior to conducting measurements in order to
(A)
Clean the glass surface
(B)
Allow the internal reference electrode to reach its equilibrium potential
(C)
Hydrate the glass to allow ion-exchange between the sample solution and the glass surface
(D)
Adjust the concentration of the internal filling solution with respect to the external sample solution
15. The addition of traces of antimony to crystalline silicon produces a material having
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
a lower conductivity than silicon.
a higher conductivity than silicon.
no conductivity
superconductivity
metallic conductivity
13
16. The bonding interactions in SmF3 are stronger than the bonding interactions in SmI3. Therefore,
one can conclude that
I. Sm3+ is a soft acid.
II. Sm2O3 will be more stable than Sm2S3.
III. Sm3+ is a hard acid.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
only I
only III
I and II
II and III
17. What substitution mechanism is most common for square planar complexes?
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
associative
dissociative
migratory insertion
reductive elimination
18. In a dissociative reaction, how does an increase in the nucleophilicity of the incoming ligand affect
the rate of the reaction?
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
The rate of the reaction increases
The rate of the reaction decreases
The rate of the reaction is unchanged
The change in the rate of the reaction depends on the oxidation state of the metal.
19. Square planar complexes containing metal atoms in a low oxidation state typically undergo
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
ligand dissociation
migratory insertion
oxidative addition
reductive elimination
20. How does “negative overlap” in Molecular Orbital Theory lead to “antibonding” between atoms?
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
The opposing charges of two orbitals cancel each other out.
The opposing phases of two orbitals cancel each other out.
The like charges of two orbitals repel each other.
The concentration of electron density between nuclei pushes them apart.
The negative phases of two orbitals repel each other.
14
Appendix B: Chemistry and Biochemistry Oral Presentation Rubric
Scoring Rubric for Oral Scientific Presentations
Level of Achievement
Excellent
16-20 points
Good
11-15 points
Marginal
6-10 points
Inadequate
0-5 points
Organization
• Well thought out with
logical progression
• Use of proper language
• Significance clearly
stated
• Content level appropriate
for audience
• Abstract and
bibliography are well
constructed
• Talk easy to follow
• Use of proper language
• Significance clearly
stated
• Content level not always
appropriate
• Abstract and/or
bibliography have some
errors
• Talk somewhat
disorganized
• Shows some effort to use
proper language
• Significance somewhat
unclear
• Includes some irrelevant
content and inappropriate
content level
• Abstract and
bibliography are not well
constructed
• Talk difficult to follow
• Unclear language
• Does not understand
significance of work
• Inadequate content
• Abstract and
bibliography lack proper
content and construction
Understanding of Scientific
Content
• Identifies the research
question/research field
• Has advanced
understanding of the
experimental approach
and significance
• Critically evaluates
results, methodology and
conclusions
• Scientifically rigorous
and well researched
• Identifies the research
question/research field
• Has basic understanding
of the experimental
approach and
significance
• Limited evaluation of
results, methodology and
conclusions
• Well researched
• Research
question/research field
somewhat unclear
• Description of
experimental approach
somewhat confusing
• Results and conclusions
stated but not critically
evaluated
• Does not integrate
outside readings
• Does not understand the
research
• Does not understand the
experimental approach
• Does not understand
conclusions or recognize
implications for future
work
Style/Delivery
• Uses time wisely
• Speaks with good pacing
and enthusiasm
• Makes eye contact and
does not read
information
• Uses engaging tone and
appropriate vocabulary
• Speaks well, but often
repeats comments
• Exhibits few disfluencies
(“ahs”, “uhms”, etc.)
• Makes eye contact
• Uses good vocabulary
and tone
• Presentation poorly
timed
• Some hesitation and
uncertainty are apparent
• Exhibits many
disfluencies
• Makes little eye contact
and looks at notes
• Monotone and nonengaging delivery
• Presentation poorly
timed
• Makes no eye contact
and reads from notes
• Hesitation and
uncertainty are very
apparent
• Speaks too quietly or
quickly for audience to
hear and understand
Use of Visual Aids
• Tables/graphs summarize
data and/or conclusions
• Size and labels are clear
• Very little text
• Figures and images
explained and described
well
• Presentation has no
misspellings or
grammatical errors
• Makes limited and
effective use of laser
pointer
• AV set up properly
• Text appropriately sized
• Very little text
• Most figures and images
explained and described
well
• Presentation has an
occasional misspelling or
grammatical error
• Uses laser pointer
effectively
• AV set up properly
• Labels and legends
somewhat unclear
• Text size somewhat
small
• Too much detail on
slides
• Blocks of text on slides
• Figures are explained
• Presentation has multiple
misspellings and/or
grammatical errors
• Uses laser pointer
unnecessarily
• AV mishaps resolved
• Labeling is not clear
• Size is too small to see
• No logical placement of
information
• Mostly text and very few
images
• Figures are not explained
• Presentation has
numerous misspellings
and/or grammatical
errors
• Use of laser pointer is
distracting
• AV mishaps unresolved
Ability to Answer Questions
• Anticipates audience
questions
• Understands audience
questions
• Can integrate knowledge
to answer questions
• Thoroughly responds to
questions
• Does not anticipate
audience questions
• Understands audience
questions
• Can integrate knowledge
to answer questions
• Thoroughly responds to
most questions
• Does not anticipate
audience questions
• Makes an effort to
address question
• Can address some
questions
• Often responds poorly to
questions
• Either makes no effort to
respond to questions or
does so poorly