Criteria for Oral Presentations
This is the standard sheet for marking oral presentations. A module
coordinator may depart from the list of criteria or from the relative
weighting of criteria, but in such cases, the revised mark sheet must be
made available in the module handbook at the beginning of the semester.
CRITERION DESCRIPTION
TIMEKEEPING
Disorganised, poor timing.
POOR GOOD
MIN
MAX
0
20
STRUCTURE
Unstructured, no clear aims;
poor introduction, development
CRITERION DESCRIPTION
TIMEKEEPING
Well organised; starts and ends on time.
WEIGHT
10%
STRUCTURE
0
20
of argument and conclusion to
Well structured: clear overview and well
signalled transitions between
10%
introduction, development and summary.
topic.
SCHOLARLY CONTENT
Poor standard of knowledge
and understanding of
SCHOLARLY CONTENT
0
20
basic facts and source material;
Accurate and correct amount of material
40%
pitched at appropriate level.s
too much or too little material
at wrong level.
VERBAL DELIVERY
Unclear, too quiet, mumbled,
monotonous & uninteresting
VERBAL DELIVERY
0
20
enthusiasm; ignoring audience
NON VERBAL DELIVERY
0
20
uncoordinated with verbal
0
20
0
20
GROUP DISCUSSION
Attentive to group, facilitating discussion,
10%
appropriate intervention.
TOTAL
Page 1 of 2
10%
RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS/ LEADING
QUESTIONS/LEADING GROUP
overly directive).
Legible and interesting; enhancing
presentation.
RESPONDING TO
Inappropriate (inadequate or
10%
VISUAL AIDS
delivery.
DISCUSSION
Energy and enthusiasm; good eye contact;
no distracting mannerisms.
VISUAL AIDS
Illegible, cluttered;
10%
explained in content.
NON-VERBAL DELIVERY
Lacking confidence and
Clear; audible, varied engaging tone, well
(100%)
SCORE
AWARDED
Specific Qualitative comments:
Quality of preparation and time-keeping
Points for commendation and areas for improvement
Quality of academic content (structure and technical content) Points for
commendation and areas for improvement
Quality of delivery (verbal, non-verbal, visual aids (if used)) Points for
commendation and areas for improvement
Quality of leadership of group discussion
Points for commendation and areas for improvement
version September 2014
Page 2 of 2