15. Sample Scoring Rubrics for PresentationsScoring Rubric for Oral Presentations: Example #1

18. Category

19. Scoring Criteria Total Points

20. Score

22. Organization

23. (15 points) The type of presentation is appropriate for the topic and

24. audience. 5

25. Information is presented in a logical sequence. 5

26. Presentation appropriately cites requisite number of references. 5

30. Content

31. (45 points) Introduction is attention-getting, lays out the problem well, and

32. establishes a framework for the rest of the presentation. 5

33. Technical terms are well-defined in language appropriate for

34. the target audience. 5

35. Presentation contains accurate information. 10

36. Material included is relevant to the overall message/purpose. 10

37. Appropriate amount of material is prepared, and points made

38. reflect well their relative importance. 10

39. There is an obvious conclusion summarizing the presentation. 5

43. Presentation

44. (40 points) Speaker maintains good eye contact with the audience and is

45. appropriately animated (e.g., gestures, moving around, etc.). 5

46. Speaker uses a clear, audible voice. 5

47. Delivery is poised, controlled, and smooth. 5

48. Good language skills and pronunciation are used. 5

49. Visual aids are well prepared, informative, effective, and not

50. distracting. 5

51. Length of presentation is within the assigned time limits. 5

52. Information was well communicated. 10

53. Score Total Points 100

55. Scoring Rubric for Oral Presentations: Example #2

57. Content and Scientific Merit (60 points)

58. Introduction:

59. ○ Defines background and importance of research.

60. ○ States objective, and is able to identify relevant questions.

62. Body:

63. ○ Presenter has a scientifically valid argument.

64. ○ Addresses audience at an appropriate level (rigorous, but generally understandable to a scientifically-minded group).

65. ○ Offers evidence of proof/disproof.

66. ○ Describes methodology.

67. ○ The talk is logical.

69. Conclusion:

70. ○ Summarizes major points of talk.

71. ○ Summarizes potential weaknesses (if any) in findings.

72. ○ Provides you with a “take-home” message.

74. Speaking Style/Delivery (20 points)

75. ○ Speaks clearly and at an understandable pace.

76. ○ Maintains eye contact with audience.

77. ○ Well rehearsed (either extemporaneous or scripted presentation).

78. ○ Limited use of filler words (“umm,” “like,” etc.).

79. ○ Speaker uses body language appropriately.

80. ○ Speaker is within time limits.

81. ○ Speaker is able to answer questions professionally.

82. ○ Speaker is dressed appropriately.

84. Audio/Visual (20 points)

85. ○ Graphs/figures are clear and understandable.

86. ○ The text is readable and clear.

87. ○ Audio/Visual components support the main points of the talk.

88. ○ Appropriate referencing of data that is/was not generated by presenter

90. General Comments

92. Scoring Rubric for Oral Presentations: Example #3

95. PRESENCE

96. -body language & eye contact

97. -contact with the public

98. -poise

99. -physical organization

101. LANGUAGE SKILLS

102. -correct usage

103. -appropriate vocabulary and grammar

104. -understandable (rhythm, intonation, accent)

105. -spoken loud enough to hear easily

107. ORGANIZATION

108. -clear objectives

109. -logical structure

110. -signposting

112. MASTERY OF THE SUBJECT

113. -pertinence

114. -depth of commentary

115. -spoken, not read

116. -able to answer questions

118. VISUAL AIDS

119. -transparencies, slides

120. -handouts

121. -audio, video, etc.

123. OVERALL IMPRESSION

124. -very interesting / very boring

125. -pleasant / unpleasant to listen to

126. -very good / poor communication

128. TOTAL SCORE _______ / 30

130. Scoring Rubric for Oral Presentations: Example #4

132. Poor Excellent

133. PRESENTATION SKILLS

134. Were the main ideas presented in an orderly and clear manner. . . 

135. Did the presentation fill the time allotted?     

136. Were the overheads/handouts appropriate and helpful to the audience. 

137. Did the talk maintain the interest of the audience?     

138. Was there a theme or take-home message to the presentation?     

139. Was the presenter responsive to audience questions?     

141. KNOWLEDGE BASE

142. Was proper background information on the topic given?     

143. Was the material selected for presentation appropriate to the topic. 

144. Was enough essential information given to allow the audience to effectively     

145. evaluate the topic?

146. Was irrelevant or filler information excluded?     

147. Did the presenter have a clear understanding of the material presented

149. CRITICL THINKING

150. Were the main issues in this area clearly identified?     

151. Were both theoretical positions and empirical evidence presented. . 

152. Were the strengths and weaknesses of these theories, and the methods used to     

153. gather this evidence adequately explained?

154. Did the presenter make recommendations for further work in this area?     

155. Did the main conclusions of the presentation follow from the material presented?     

156. Were competing explanations or theories considered and dealt with properly?     

158. OVERALL IMPRESSION _______ / 15

160. COMMENTS

166. TOTAL SCORE _______ / 100