Oral Presentation Rubric
You and your partner(s) will be assessed base on the below rubric. Please use this rubric when creating and presenting your PowerPoint presentation.
Total /54
Title Slide
/3
Criteria
- Title is clear and tells the audience what the presentation is about
- All names of researchers provided
- Affiliations are provided
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 3 pts |
All 3 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 2 pts |
2 of the 3 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Outline
/2
Criteria
- Outline has been provided and is clear
- Outline goes over all relevant items which will be discussed
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 2 pts |
All criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Background
/6
Criteria
- 2 slides
- Only essential information has been provided
- Relevancy about the project has been described
- Student objectives/hypotheses have been well described
- Presenter displays a clear passion for the importance of the topic and is engaging
- 1-2 min was provided for this section
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 6 pts |
All 6 criteria are met |
| Excellent 5 pts |
5 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Proficient 4 pts |
4 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 3 pts |
3 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 2 pt |
2 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Poor 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Experimental Design
/6
Criteria
- 1-2 slides with
- Photos/figures used help to explain the methods
- Description of the design was clear with enough information provided so others can replicate
- Study group is described and an explanation for why it was used is provided
- Variables being tested were described
- Control group described
- Information regarding sample size and trial numbers was provided
- Experimental design was appropriate to test the question/hypothesis
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 6 pts |
All 7 criteria are met |
| Excellent 5 pts |
5-6 of the 7 criteria are met |
| Proficient 4 pts |
4 of the 7 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 3 pts |
3 of the 7 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 2 pt |
2 of the 7 criteria are met |
| Poor 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Results
/5
Criteria
- At least 2 slides were provided which included graphs/charts etc
- No raw data was provided
- No figures/tables were provided and not explained
- Both quantifiable and qualitative results were provided
- A mixture of text, tables, figures, photos were used to convey results and those selected were the most appropriate for that type of data
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 5 pts |
All 5 criteria are met |
| Proficient 4 pts |
4 of the 5 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 3 pts |
3 of the 5 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 2 pt |
2 of the 5 criteria are met |
| Poor 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Discussion
/6
Criteria
- 2 slides provided
- Results not repeated
- Interpretation of the results was provided and was accurate
- Findings were clearly presented with the most relevant to the least relevant
- Results were clearly described and compared to other similar studies and their findings
- Limitations to the study were clearly provided
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 6 pts |
All 6 criteria are met |
| Excellent 5 pts |
5 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Good 4 pts |
4 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Proficient 3 pts |
3 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 2 pt |
2 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Recommendations
/6
Criteria
- Recommendations were clearly outlined
- Recommendations were relevant to the problem at hand
- Recommendations were based on current research
- Recommendations were based on previous studies and their findings
| x | Points |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 6 pts |
All 6 criteria are met |
| Excellent 5 pts |
5 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Good 4 pts |
4 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 3 pt |
3 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 2 pt |
2 of the 6 criteria are met |
| Poor 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Acknowledgements
/2
Criteria
- All those individuals involved were recognized for their efforts
- Funding acknowledgment was provided
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 2 pts |
All criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Slide Content
/5
Criteria
- Titles for each slide told the audience exactly what they were looking at
- Proper sans serif font was used
- Slides were presented in the order of the outline
- Slide was not wordy but rather all content is done in point form
- Any copyrighted materials were cited appropriately
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 5 pts |
All 5 criteria are met |
| Proficient 4 pts |
4 of the 5 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 3 pts |
3 of the 5 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 2 pt |
2 of the 5 criteria are met |
| Poor 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Oral Presentation Skills
/7
Criteria
- Presenters did not sound scripted
- Presenters did not read of computer and/or notes
- It was clear that the presenters understood the material they were presenting
- Presentation fell within the appropriate time span
- All charts/figures/graphs were explained thoroughly
- All associations were clearly described
- Questions were answered knowledgeably and professionally.
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 7 pts |
All 7 criteria are met |
| Excellent 6 pts |
6 of the 7 criteria are met |
| Proficient 5 pts |
5 of the 7 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 4 pts |
4 of the 7 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 3 pt |
3 of the 7 criteria are met |
| Insufficient 2 pts |
2 of the 7 criteria are met |
| Poor 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Additional
/3
Criteria
- Presentation was submitted 24 hours prior to the presentation
- Each presenter contributed equally to the project
- All in-text citations are references were provided
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 3 pts |
All 3 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 2 pts |
2 of the 3 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |
Slide Appearance
/3
Criteria
- Slides were simple, high-contrast, and had a consistent colour scheme
- Slides were built to be “colour-blind friendly”
- Slides were uncluttered, clear, and visible from across the room
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Full Marks 3 pts |
All 3 criteria are met |
| Satisfactory 2 pts |
2 of the 3 criteria are met |
| Unsatisfactory 1 pt |
Only 1 of the criteria is met |
| Incomplete 0 pts |
None of the criteria are met |