Draft Poster Assessment Criteria
The assessment is split into two major sections, which are further subdivided. Each
individual element is marked on a scale from 5 to 0.
Presentation: ranges from a well organized and presented poster to one that is
disorganized and poorly designed. Weighting 40%?
Colours (background, matting, text etc).
Good 
     Poor
Text (Font selection, Font sizes, easy to read from 1 – 1.5m?).
Good 
     Poor
Line and paragraph lengths (ideal a maximum of 60 – 80 characters per line, no
more than 10 lines per paragraph).
Good 
    
Organisation and Flow (Layout, headings, explicit links).
Poor
Good 
 
Sufficient ‘white space’ (ideal is 40%).
Poor



Sufficient
     
Text / Graphics balance (50:50 – total 60% coverage).
Too little/much
Good 
   
Style (Is it consistent, e.g. 1st person throughout?).
Poor

Good 
     Poor
Mistakes (e.g. spellings, unexplained abbreviations, grammar)
None






Many
Content: ranges from a poster that successfully reports the results of the study with
no extraneous content to one that has a large amount of unnecessary material and it
is difficult to identify the poster’s focus. Weighting 60%?
Author identification.
Complete
    
Title (Informative, appropriate, concise, imaginative).

None
Good 
     Poor
Aims/Objectives (explicitly stated or obvious, aims and objectives not confused).
Clear 
   
Scientific explanations (Lucid, accurate and relevant).

Missing
Good 

Acknowledgement of sources

Poor



Complete
      Missing
Tables (if present, clear layout and sufficient detail in caption).
Good 
     Poor
Figures (if present, effective artwork, necessary and sufficient detail in caption)
Good






Poor
Sufficient detail (Appropriate amount, no unnecessary jargon).
Good 
     Poor
‘Take home message’ (It should be obvious how and why the work was undertaken).
Good
Mark range
85-100
70-85
60-70
50-60
40-50
20-40
0-20






Poor
Quality of student work
Achieved all that could reasonably be expected in the time available.
Mistakes, if any, are trivial. No marks less than 4 and no more than 3
sections with a mark of 4.
Excellent work, highly focused and relevant with few errors, some
minor errors (<4) towards lower end of the range. Clear text and
diagrams, little superfluous material. No marks less than 3.
No more than two major deficiencies (marks less than 3) and no major
flaws (marks of 0 or 1). Good content, structure and presentation.
No major flaws (marks of 0 or 1) but a large number of deficiencies
(marks of 2 or 3).
Sufficient evidence of knowledge and understanding to indicate
familiarity with subject area though may be confused and/or
unfocused. Some relevant material but omits key points and/or
contains significant errors. Usually has at least 4 marks below 3 in
both presentation and content sections.
A fail – a large number of major flaws and shows limited evidence of
knowledge and understanding. Poster presentation is poor in most
assessed elements.
A token effort, shows no evidence of knowledge and understanding
with major errors and misconceptions. Very poorly presented poster,
all marks below 3.