Student Symposium - Judging Rubrics
Video Presentations
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."
| Criteria | 4 points | 3 points | 2 points | 1 point |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focused Main Topic Considerations: Statement of question/ problem/ purpose; Presentation of supporting details | Main question or purpose was very clear and compelling. Details were logical and well-chosen details. | Main question or purpose was clear, but minor supporting details may be missing or underdeveloped. | Main question or purpose was partially clear, but some needed context or details are missing or are not in logical order. | Main question or purpose was not sufficiently clear. Supporting details are lacking or disorganized. |
| Context & Significance Considerations: Background context for research/ project/ experience; Significance of the work to field and/or self | Provided well-developed and explicit context for the research/ project/ experience, clear sense of significance of the work | Provided context and significance but relied on implicit logic/ assumptions | Presents incomplete context and significance, or context and significance are somewhat unclear | Provides insufficient context, or significance of the work is not expressed |
| Adaptation for Audience Considerations: Awareness and accommodation of a non-expert audience to the extent possible | Used little or no jargon; defined potentially unfamiliar terms | Used jargon but defined most terms or provided clarification | Used some jargon without explanation | Use of jargon risked limited audience understanding |
| Delivery Considerations: Manner and poise; Pace, volume and intonation | Exceptionally poised and professional, excellent vocal quality | Poised and professional, used appropriate vocal quality | Sufficiently poised and professional, but speech was somewhat difficult to hear or follow | Not sufficiently poised or professional, speech was difficult to hear or follow |
| Video Content & Design Considerations: Visuals are helpful for understanding; Content is legible & well labeled/explained | Visuals enhanced the content and comprehension of the ideas | Visuals were appropriate and did not distract viewer from the content | Visuals somewhat distracted viewer from the presentation | Unclear visuals undermined the presentation |
Live Oral Presentations and Poster 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 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. |