Oral Presentations and Poster Presentations
Official Student Symposium judges will use the rubric below to evaluate all student presentations.
| Criteria | 4 points | 3 points | 2 points | 1 point |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Articulate purpose/ research question/ description of problem Considerations: Clarity and completeness of statement; Significance explained for a non-expert audience | Central purpose or question was very clear and compelling, and the context and significance were engaging for the audience. | Central purpose or question was clear, but aspects of context and significance may be underdeveloped or the audience not fully considered. | Central purpose or question was partially clear, but some needed context or significance is missing. | Central purpose or question was not sufficiently clear, insufficient context or significance is provided to engage the audience. |
| Selection of methods/ approach Considerations: Choice of methods/ approach explained clearly; Selection and use of suitable methods or approach | The approach to the project was clearly explained, and the methods selected for conducting the project were highly appropriate to the topic or discipline. | The approach to the project was clear, and the selected methods were mostly appropriate to the topic or discipline. | The approach to the project needed additional consideration, or the selected methods could have been more appropriate to the topic or discipline. | The approach to the project was not sufficiently explained, or the selected methods were not appropriate to the topic or discipline. |
| Identification of findings and next steps Considerations: Identification of valid findings or results of the work; Acknowledgement of what is learned and limitations of the work; Projections of next steps/future directions | Findings or results of the work were clearly identified and evaluated specifically in terms of both strengths and weaknesses. Interesting next steps/ future directions were suggested. | Findings or results of the work were identified and evaluated with regard for both strengths and weaknesses, but perhaps in a generalized way. Next steps/ future directions were suggested. | Findings or results of the work were partially identified and evaluated generally in terms of success and failure. Next steps/ future directions for study were not entirely plausible. | Findings or results of the work were not clearly identified and were not fully evaluated. Next steps/ future directions were not identified or were implausible. |
| Presentation style Considerations: Delivery quality; Use of visuals | Presenter was exceptionally poised and professional, excellent vocal quality. Visuals enhanced the content and comprehension of the ideas. | Presenter was poised and professional, used appropriate vocal quality. Visuals were helpful and appropriate and did not distract viewer from the content. | Presenter was sufficiently poised and professional, but speech was somewhat difficult to hear or follow, or visuals somewhat distracted from the content. | Presenter lacked poise or the style was unprofessional; speech was difficult to hear or follow, or visuals detracted from the content. |
| Quality of Question and Answer (Q&A) Considerations: Answers reflect good understanding of the question; Answers are clear and concise | Questions were addressed completely and effectively, conveying a genuine sense of understanding and engagement. | Questions were addressed clearly, through minor supporting points may be missing or underdeveloped | Questions were addressed with partial clarity, but may not have been complete, accurate or concise | Questions were not addressed sufficiently, details were lacking or inaccurate, or answers digress |
| Application of prior learning Considerations: Identification of prior coursework or experience that contributed to the undertaking | Student clearly indicated how prior learning from within and outside of the classroom contributed to their research or project, and reflected thoughtfully on its application. | Student cited examples of how prior learning from within or outside of the classroom contributed to their research or project, and clearly articulated on how prior learning was applied. | Student cited minimal examples of how prior learning from within or outside of the classroom contributed to their research or project, and/or provided minimal reflection on how prior learning was applied. | Student did not cite significant examples of how prior learning from within or outside of the classroom contributed to their research or project, and/or did not state how prior learning was applied. |