Oral Presentation Grading Rubric
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9dab2/9dab21737cee23eb7a9050f254ebb8f044ce961b" alt="Oral Presentation Grading Rubric"
Evaluator Name______
Oral Presentation Grading Rubric
Team:______Date:______
Please use the criteria in the following tables to rate the quality of I - engineering content, II - individual presentations, and III - overall presentation.
I. Engineering Content Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent statement of Good statement of Statement of problem Inaccurate statement of design problem or need design problem or need or need is confusing or problem or need Excellent discussion of Adequate discussion of incomplete All alternatives are design alternatives design alternatives At least one alternative seriously flawed Feasibility/merit Feasibility/merit seems contrived Feasibility/merit criteria well developed criteria well developed Feasibility/merit criteria poorly and applied partially applied criteria developed and developed an not Engineering analysis Engineering analysis applied inappropriately applied techniques predict or techniques predict or Engineering analysis Engineering analysis verify accuracy of verify accuracy of techniques poorly techniques omitted for design certain aspects of predict or verify verifying accuracy of Complete and accurate design accuracy of design design set of engineering Incomplete but Incomplete and Engineering drawings drawings accurate set of inaccurate set of omitted All required resources engineering drawings engineering drawings No resources identified identifed Some required Minimal resources No budget developed Complete budget resources identified identified estimated and presented Budget estimated and Incomplete budget presented estimated and presented
The BREADTH of engineering content of this oral presentation was (circle one): Note: Breadth is defined as the appropriate variety of an applied engineering discipline.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Comments:
The DEPTH of engineering content of this oral presentation was (circle one): Note: Depth is defined as sufficient technical content of an applied engineering discipline.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Comments: II. Individual Presentations Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent use of Good use of language Simplistic use of Significant language without with few grammatical language; many grammatical errors grammatical errors errors grammatical errors Volume too low or Volume and rate vary Volume not too soft or Volume too low or loud; rate too fast or to add emphasis loud; rate not too fast loud; rate too fast or slow; monotone Clear articulation or slow slow Significant articulation Excellent eye contact Majority of articulation Poor articulation problems and presence adequate Poor eye contact and No eye contact or No verbal static (um, Good eye contact and presence presence ah) presence Lots of verbal static Excessive verbal static Excellent, substantive Minimal verbal static Poor responses to Answered no questions responses to questions Good responses to questions most questions
The quality of each individual presentation was (circle one):
Name of Speaker: ______Excellent Good Fair Poor
Name of Speaker: ______Excellent Good Fair Poor
Name of Speaker: ______Excellent Good Fair Poor
Name of Speaker: ______Excellent Good Fair Poor
III. Overall Presentation
Excellent Good Fair Poor Clear organization Some elements of Organization lacking No apparent pattern organization present Inadequate transition organization Excellent transition Appropriate transition between topics No transition between between topics between topics Inadequate transition topics Excellent transition Adequate transition between speakers No transition between between speakers between speakers Visuals poorly speakers Visuals well designed Visuals adequately designed Visuals inadequate to support topics designed Visuals contain many Visuals contain Visuals contain no Visual contain minimal errors significant errors errors errors Well over/ under time Significantly over/ Appropriate length Over/under time limit limit under time
The overall quality of this oral presentation was (circle one): Excellent Good Fair Poor