Judges use the rubrics below to assess the projects and choose the winners. Faculty advisors should review the rubrics with students.
Please provide a number score (up to 5 points) for each of the categories below according to the presenter's proficiency in each area.
| Excellent | Very Good | Good | Okay | Unacceptable | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verbal Skills | Clear Voice, appropriate volume, engaging tone | Good voice quality, suitable volume, maintains engagement | Adequate voice and volume, needs occasional improvement in engagement | Inconsistent voice quality or volume, limited engagement | Poor voice quality, inappropriate volume, lacks engagement |
| Nonverbal Skills | Consistently maintains strong and appropriate eye contact; displays engaging body langugage | Mostly maintains strong and appropriate eye contact; displays engaging body language | Shows moderate engagement through eye contact and body language | Intermittent eye contact or uncomfortable body language | Lacks appropriate eye contact, displays inappropriate body langugage |
| Quality of Explanation | Comprehensive, clear, and articulate explanation, facilitating easy understanding | Mostly comprehensive and clear, minor areas needing further clarity | Generally clear but lacking depth or detail in some explanations | Some explanations are unclear or insufficiently detailed | Entirely unclear or absent explanations, hindering comprehension |
| Coherence | Coherent flow, exceptional overall content quality | Good flow and quality of content | Fairly coherent flow and content quality | Inconsistent flow, moderate content quality | Incoherent flow, poor overall content quality |
| Design | Professional, fitting visual design without distracting elements | Mostly professional design, minimal distracting elements/errors | Generally fitting design, some distracting elements/errors | Somewhat fitting design with some distracting elements or inconsistencies | Highly distracting or inappropriate design, many errors |
| Grammar & Style | Accurate grammar, style, and proper citations where appropriate | Mostly accurate grammar and style, minor citation issues | Generally accurate, occasional grammar or citation errors | Noticeable grammar/style issues, missing citations, affecting understanding | Numerous grammar/style errors, missing citations, affecting understanding |
Please provide a number score (up to 6 points) for each category below according to the presenter's proficiency in each area.
|
Excellent (5 points) |
Very Good (4 points) |
Good (3 points) |
Okay (2 points) |
Unacceptable (1 point) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engagement | Engaglinly captures attention with dynamic delivery, visuals, and clear communication | Holds interest with clear articulation, visuals, and fairly dynamic delivery | Somewhat engaging but could improve dynamics or visual use | Slightly engaging but lacking in several areas | Entirely dull or lacking attempts to engage |
| Explanation & Clarity | Clear and comprehensive explanation, including explanation of technical terms for easy understanding | Mostly clear and mostly explains technical terms | Mostly clear explanation but with some technical terms needing simplification | Clarity could be improved, much jargon unclarified | Fails to explain technical language, making it challenging to understand |
| Presentation Style | Complete comfort and confidence, maintains eye contact with audience, fluid speech without pauses | Displays confidence, good eye contact; good speech with minimal hesitation | Shows moderate comfort and confidence; mostly fluid speech but with occasional hesitation | Shows moderate discomfort; occasional hesitation | Entirely uncomfortable; many pauses |
| Poster Layout & Grammar | Logically and coherently laid out; no mistakes; no room for improvement; impeccable grammar | Generally logical and coherent layout; very few minor mistakes or areas of improvement | Good layout; minor sections need improvement or better organization; minor grammatical errors | Somewhat logical layout; coherence or organization could be improved in sections; some grammatical errors | Confusing or disorganized layout; many errors |
| Implications & Applications | Discusses implications comprehensively and effectively | Generally well-discussed, needs more depth | Adequate discussion, lacking in some areas | Somewhat unclear or lacks essential details | Entirely unclear or absent |
The following sections apply only to poster presentations of original empirical research.
|
Excellent (5 points) |
Very Good (4 points) |
Good (3 points) |
Okay (2 points) |
Unacceptable (1 point) |
N/A (0 points) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study Purpose | Thoroughly explains study's purpose and research question | Generally well-explained, lacks depth in some aspects | Adequately explained, needs further elaboration | Somewhat unclear or incomplete | Entirely unclear or missing | Not original empirical work |
| Methodology | Provides a clear explanation of the methodology | Generally well-explained, lacks a few details | Adequately explained, needs more detail | Somewhat unclear or lacking details | Entirely unclear or absent | Not original empirical work |
| Results & Conclusion | Clearly explains results and conclusion | Well-explained but lacks depth in parts | Adequately explained, requires more clarification | Somewhat unclear or missing | Entirely unclear or missing | Not original empirical work |
| Exemplary (3 points) |
Good (2 points) |
Acceptable (1 point) |
Unacceptable (0 points) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thesis | - exceptionally clear, arguable, welldeveloped, and a definitive statement that makes a claim. -is in the introduction or conclusion. |
- clear and arguable statement of position. -is in the introduction or conclusion. |
- somewhat clear and arguable. -is in the introduction or conclusion. |
-paper’s purpose is unclear/thesis is weak or missing. |
| Introduction | -exceptional introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic. | -proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. | -basic introduction that states topic but lacks interest. | -weak or no introduction of topic. |
| Quality of Information & Evidence |
-paper is exceptionally researched, detailed, and accurate |
-information relates to the main topic. -paper is well-researched in detail and from a variety of reliable sources (at least 10). |
-information relates to the main topic, but few details and/or examples are given. -shows a limited variety of sources, or sources may be biased or unreliable |
-information has little or nothing to do with the thesis. -information has weak or no connection to the thesis. -sources are very unreliable, or no sources listed |
| Support of Thesis/ Organization & Analysis | -exceptionally critical, relevant and consistent connections made between evidence and thesis. -exceptionally clear, logical, and thorough development of thesis. -excellent analysis. NOTE: thesis must be “good” or above to earn 3 points for support |
-consistent connections made between evidence and thesis -clear and logical order that supports thesis. -good analysis. NOTE: thesis must be “good” or above to earn 2 points for support |
-some connections made between evidence and thesis. -somewhat clear and logical development. -some analysis. |
-limited or no connections made between evidence and thesis. -lacks development of ideas. -lack of analysis. |
| Conclusion | -excellent summary of topic with concluding ideas that impact reader. -introduces no new information. |
-good summary of topic with clear concluding ideas. -introduces no new information. |
-basic summary of topic with some final concluding ideas. -introduces no new information. |
-lack of summary of topic. |
| Style/ Voice | -style and voice are appropriate to the given purpose, and show originality and creativity. -word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic and varied. -sentences are clear, active, and to the point. |
-style and voice appropriate to the given purpose. -word choice is specific, purposeful, and somewhat varied throughout. -sentences are mostly clear, active, and to the point. |
-style and voice somewhat appropriate to given purpose. -word choice is often unspecific, generic, redundant, and clichéd. -sentences are somewhat unclear; excessive use of passive voice. |
-style and voice inappropriate or do not address given purpose -word choice is excessively redundant, clichéd, and unspecific. -sentences are very unclear. |
| Grammar Usage/ Mechanics | -shows control of grammar, usage, and mechanics. -almost entirely free of spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. |
-may contain few spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors. | -spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors somewhat detract from the paper’s readability. | -so many spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors that the paper cannot be understood. |
| Citations |
-all sources are accurately documented in the proper format, in-text and in the References/Works Cited page
|
-all sources are documented in-text and in the References/Works Cited page, with some formatting errors | -some sources are not documented, and there are formatting errors | -sources are not accurately documented; proper citation formatting is not attempted; or no sources are listed |
