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."
| Criteria | 4 points | 3 points | 2 points | 1 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 detail | Clear, but minor supporting points may be missing or underdeveloped | Partially clear, but some needed details are missing or are not in logical order | Not 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 explicit | Clear but sometimes implicit | Not entirely clear | Unclear |
| 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 prodding | Used jargon but defined terms | Used some jargon without explanation | Use 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 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 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 presentation | Visuals were appropriate and did not distract the presentation | Visuals somewhat distracted the presentation | Visuals Undermined the presentation |
Round 2:
| Criteria | 4 points | 3 points | 2 points | 1 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 compelling | Adequately clear | Partially clear | Not 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 explicit | Clear but sometimes implicit | Not entirely clear | Unclear |
| 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 prodding | Used jargon, but defined terms | Used some jargon without explanation | Use 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 quality | Poised and professional, used appropriate vocal quality | Sufficiently poised and professional, but speech was somewhat difficult to hear or follow | Not 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 engagement | Questions addressed clearly, through minor supporting points may be missing or underdeveloped | Questions addressed with partial clarity, but may not have been complete, accurate or concise | Questions were addressed sufficiently, detail is lacking or inaccurate, or answers digress |