Orals Grading Rubric PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Orals Grading Rubric PDF

Description

Effective Oral Presentation Ethics 2501 PRESENTER _______________________________ DIMENSION Preparedness (Mechanics of setup, e.g. cables, software, logging in)

Organization

Slide Presentation Mechanics

Clarity and Volume of Delivery

Relating to Audience

Audience Engagement* Understanding of Ethical and Social Issues

CSE 2501

DATE ________________

0

1

2

Speaker spent too much time in set up.

Speaker spent more than two minutes in setup.

Speaker spent less than one minute in setup.

Talk was ready to go when speaker given green light.

Audience cannot understand presentation because of poor organization; introduction is undeveloped or irrelevant; main points are unclear.

Audience has difficulty following presentation because of some abrupt jumps; some of the main points are unclear or not sufficiently stressed. Boring slides; no glaring mistakes but no real effort made into creating truly effective slides.

Satisfactory organization; clear introduction; main points are well stated, even if some transitions are somewhat sudden.

Superb organization; clear introduction; main points well stated and argued, with each leading to the next point of the talk.

Generally good set of slides; conveys the main points well.

Low voice, occasionally inaudible; some distracting filler words and gestures; articulation mostly, but not always, clear. Occasional eye contact with audience but mostly reads the presentation; some awareness of at least a portion of the audience.

Clear voice, generally effective delivery; minimal distracting gestures, etc., but somewhat monotone

Talk was slightly engaging but not much interest after the talk; audience asked no question. Some consideration of professional, ethical issues raised directly by the topic under discussion; Discussion of opposing sides’ arguments on partially centered around Contemporary Issues.

Talk was somewhat engaging: audience asked one or two questions afterward. Good understanding of and reasonable analysis of all the essential relevant issues. Focus of opposing groups’ arguments on Contemporary Issues is a little weak or focused on more than 1 per side.

Very creative slides; carefully thought out to bring out both the main points as well as the subtle issues while keeping the audience interested. Natural, confident delivery that does not just convey the message but enhances it; excellent use of volume, pace etc. Keeps the audience engaged throughout the presentation; modifies material on-the-fly based on audience behavior; keenly aware of audience reactions. Talk was engaging: audience asked at least three questions afterward.

Slides seem to have been cut-and pasted together haphazardly at the last minute; numerous mistakes; speaker not always sure what is coming next. Mumbles the words, audience members in the back can't hear anything; too many filler words; distracting gestures. Reads most of the presentation from the slides or notes with no eye contact with audience members; seems unaware of audience reactions. Talk was monotone and boring: audience not engaged. Little or no understanding of professional/ethical issues even where there are serious questions involved. No mention of focus on Contemporary Issues.

Generally aware of the audience reactions; maintains good eye contact when presenting.

3

Deep understanding of the professional issues involved and the ethical implications of the topic under discussion; careful, convincing analysis of all relevant factors. Focusing exclusively on 1 Contemporary Issue per

Rev. 5/10/17

GRADE

side.

DIMENSION Awareness of Implications to Society at Large Problem Formulation Timing** Q&A

0

1

2

3

Little or no understanding of (or interest in?) implications to society related to the topic under discussion.

Moderate understanding of the implications to society related to the topic under discussion.

Good understanding of the implications to society of the topic, as well as its relation to general societal issues.

Did not present a theoretical frame or briefly mentioned one without really applying; mostly opinions. Talk was outside a 6-10 min time window.

Roughly presented an ethical theoretical framework to the topic selected; included some opinion as fact. Talk was over/under by 1 minute.

Good presentation of a theoretical framework to the topic selected. Very few opinions used. Talk was over/under by 30 seconds.

Deep understanding of the immediate and long term implications to society of the topic under discussion, and the related potential benefits and risks to society. Excellent presentation of a theoretical framework to the topic selected.

GRADE

Did not know answers to any of the questions.

Most questions were left unanswered, or guesses were made.

Most answers were clearly answered; said “I don’t know” instead of guessing.

Talk was well within the 7-9 minutes required. Answers were well-thought out and clearly presented.

Presentation Total * In addition to the rubric score, enter the number of questions asked, for record purposes, and if the questioning had to be stopped because so many questions were being asked (highly engaging talk). ** In addition to the rubric score, enter the actual time of the talk. Recall that two-person talks get a double time limit. *** Total possible point value for this presentation is 33 points. For ease of comparison with Research Paper score (which is out of 100 points) Presentation score will then be converted to a score out of 100 points.

COMMENTS:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CSE 2501

Rev. 5/10/17...