Student Symposium - Judging Rubrics

Round 1:

Official Student Symposium judges should use the rubric below to evaluate videos. Friends, family and other viewers participating in "Fan Favorite" voting are encouraged to use the rubric as a guide while submitting "likes."

Criteria4 points3 points2 points1 point
Purpose & Development of Ideas
Considerations: Main idea is stated clearly. Supporting details are well chosen, compelling and relevant. Ideas are presented in a logical order.
The purpose was:Very clear and compelling, logical and well-chosen detailClear, but minor supporting points may be missing or underdevelopedPartially clear, but some needed details are missing or are not in logical orderNot sufficiently clear, supporting detail is lacking or disorganized 
Context & Significance
Considerations: Appropriate and necessary background to provide an overview of the research/project and its relevance; articulates the significance of the research/project to broader academic and professional goals.
The context was:Well-developed and explicitClear but sometimes implicitNot entirely clearUnclear
Awareness of Audience
Considerations: Presenter uses terms familiar to a general audience and defines specialized jargon.
The audience's needs were:Used little or no jargon; defined terms without proddingUsed jargon but defined termsUsed some jargon without explanationUse of jargon risked limited audience understanding
Delivery
Considerations: Presenter is poised and professional; uses appropriate pace, volume and intonation
The presenter was:Exceptionally poised and professional, excellent vocal qualityPoised and professional, used appropriate vocal qualitySufficiently poised and professional, but speech was somewhat difficult to hear or followNot sufficiently poised or professional, speech was difficult to hear or follow
Video Content & Design
Considerations: Visuals are clear and legible, items are clearly labeled or explained. Visual transitions do not detract from the ideas.
The video and content design:Visuals enhanced the presentationVisuals were appropriate and did not distract the presentationVisuals somewhat distracted the presentationVisuals Undermined the presentation

Round 2:

Criteria4 points3 points2 points1 point
Purpose & Development
Considerations: Main idea is stated clearly. Supporting details are well chosen, compelling and relevant. Ideas are presented in logical order.
The purpose was:Clear and compellingAdequately clearPartially clearNot sufficiently clear
Context & Significance
Considerations: Appropriate and necessary background to provide an overview of the research/project and its relevance; articulates the significance of the research/project to broader academic and professional goals.
The context was:Well-developed and explicitClear but sometimes implicitNot entirely clearUnclear
Awareness of Audience
Considerations: Presenter uses terms familiar to a general audience and defines specialized jargon.
The presenter:Used little to no jargon; defined terms without proddingUsed jargon, but defined termsUsed some jargon without explanationUse of jargon risked limited audience understanding
Delivery
Considerations: Presenter is poised and professional; uses appropriate pace, volume and intonation
The presenter was:Exceptionally poised and professional, excellent vocal qualityPoised and professional, used appropriate vocal qualitySufficiently poised and professional, but speech was somewhat difficult to hear or followNot sufficient poised or professional, speech was difficult to hear or follow
Quality of Q&A
Considerations: Presenter was able to answer questions appropriately, accurately, clearly, and concisely.
The presenter:Questions addressed completely and effectively, conveying a genuine sense of engagementQuestions addressed clearly, through minor supporting points may be missing or underdevelopedQuestions addressed with partial clarity, but may not have been complete, accurate or conciseQuestions were addressed sufficiently, detail is lacking or inaccurate, or answers digress