Judging Rubric | Student Research Symposium | Research Events | UMass Lowell

Updated for 2026 Student Symposium.

Official Student Symposium judges will use the rubrics below to evaluate all student presentations.

Oral Presentations

Criteria	4 points	3 points	2 points	1 point
Thesis and purpose The research question or central thesis was presented in a way that is identifiable, clear, and understandable to a general audience. The significance of the project is compelling and clearly articulated.	Central purpose or question was very clear and compelling; issues of 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 or not fully considered.	Central purpose or question was partially clear, but some needed context or explanation of significance is missing.	Central purpose or question was insufficiently clear; the audience could not connect to the thesis or purpose because key information was missing.
Selection of methods/ approach Clear explanation of and rationale for chosen methods/ approach; Selection and use of methods or approach were seemingly appropriate with a clear connection to the research question or project goals.	The approach to the project and the rationale for the approach used were explicit. The student clearly connected the chosen method/approach to the research question or project goals.	The approach to the project and the rationale for the approach used were clear. The student articulated how the method/ approach connected to the research question or project goals.	The approach to the project was stated, but the rationale that connected the method/approach to the research question or project goals was unclear or underdeveloped.	The approach to the project was not made explicit, or was poorly chosen. The student did not explain the connection between the method/approach and the research question or project goals.
Discussion of Findings Identification of valid findings or results of the work. Acknowledgement of what was learned and the limitations of the work; Future directions considered.	Findings or results of the work were clearly identified and evaluated specifically in terms of both strengths and weaknesses. Interesting next steps or future directions were explicit and plausible.	Findings or results of the work were identified and evaluated with regard for both strengths and weaknesses, but perhaps in a generalized way. General next steps/ future directions were clearly stated and plausible.	Findings or results of the work were partially identified and evaluated only generally in terms of success and failure. Next steps/ future directions were not fully developed or were not entirely plausible.	Findings or results of the work were not clearly identified or were not fully evaluated. Next steps/ future directions were not identified or were implausible.
Slide Design Presentation slides enhance the audience’s interest and understanding of the ideas; Images used are purposeful and clearly explained/labeled; Design is legible and organized.	Visuals were clear, readily interpretable, and enhanced the content and ease of comprehension of the ideas. Student used gestures to guide audience through the visuals.	Visuals were clear, appropriate, and did not distract from the content. The student interacted with the visuals to help the audience interpret some aspects of the visuals.	Visuals may not have been entirely clear or were not sufficiently interpreted or incorporated into the presentation. They may have distracted from the presentation.	Some or all of the visuals were unclear; the presenter did not interpret them sufficiently. The visuals did not contribute to or hindered the audience’s comprehension of the work.
Presentation Skills Delivery quality; Voice and poise; Ability to understand and respond to impromptu questions in a clear and concise manner.	Presenter was exceptionally poised and professional. Posture and gestures were engaging. Voice was clearly audible. Questions in the Questions and Answers (Q&A) were addressed completely and provided a sense of understanding and engagement.	Presenter was poised and professional, posture and mannerisms were not distracting. Most of the speech was clear and audible. Responses in Q&A may not have convincingly answered the question.	Presenter was inconsistently poised and professional, or may have demonstrated uncertainty. Speech may have been somewhat difficult to hear or follow. Responses in Q&A suggest that questions were only partially understood or answered.	The presenter was not easily audible or did not speak in clear sentences. Posture may have appeared disengaged. Responses in Q&A suggested that the questions may not have been understood, or answers were unclear/non-responsive.

Poster Presentations

Criteria	4 points	3 points	2 points	1 point
Thesis and purpose The research question or central thesis was presented in a way that is identifiable, clear, and understandable to a general audience. The significance of the project is compelling and clearly articulated.	Central purpose or question was very clear and compelling; issues of 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 or not fully considered.	Central purpose or question was partially clear, but some needed context or explanation of significance is missing.	Central purpose or question was insufficiently clear; the audience could not connect to the thesis or purpose because key information was missing.
Selection of methods/ approach Clear explanation of and rationale for chosen methods/ approach; Selection and use of methods or approach were seemingly appropriate with a clear connection to the research question or project goals.	The approach to the project and the rationale for the approach used were explicit. The student clearly connected the chosen method/approach to the research question or project goals.	The approach to the project and the rationale for the approach used were clear. The student articulated how the method/ approach connected to the research question or project goals.	The approach to the project was stated, but the rationale that connected the method/approach to the research question or project goals was unclear or underdeveloped.	The approach to the project was not made explicit, or was poorly chosen. The student did not explain the connection between the method/approach and the research question or project goals.
Discussion of Findings Identification of valid findings or results of the work. Acknowledgement of what was learned and the limitations of the work; Future directions considered.	Findings or results of the work were clearly identified and evaluated specifically in terms of both strengths and weaknesses. Interesting next steps or future directions were explicit and plausible.	Findings or results of the work were identified and evaluated with regard for both strengths and weaknesses, but perhaps in a generalized way. General next steps/ future directions were clearly stated and plausible.	Findings or results of the work were partially identified and evaluated only generally in terms of success and failure. Next steps/ future directions were not fully developed or were not entirely plausible.	Findings or results of the work were not clearly identified or were not fully evaluated. Next steps/ future directions were not identified or were implausible.
Poster Design Poster enhances the audience’s interest and understanding of the ideas; Images used are purposeful and clearly explained/labeled; Design is legible and organized	Poster could stand on its own but amplified the oral explanation and the viewer’s understanding; Images/ data were clear and strategically chosen; The design was purposeful and clear.	Poster covered the main points, but needed an oral explanation to be fully understood; Images/ data were appropriate; The design was easy to follow.	Poster mostly covered the main points, but needed an oral explanation to be understood; The images, data, or design may have been somewhat unclear or difficult to follow.	Poster omitted some key points, and required an oral explanation to be understood; The images, data, or design may have been unclear or difficult to follow.
Presentation Skills Delivery quality; Voice and poise; Ability to understand and respond to impromptu questions in a clear and concise manner.	Presenter was exceptionally poised and professional. Posture and gestures were engaging. Voice was clearly audible. Questions in Q&A were addressed completely and provided a sense of understanding and engagement.	Presenter was poised and professional, posture and mannerisms were not distracting. Most of the speech was clear and audible. Responses in Q&A may not have convincingly answered the question.	Presenter was inconsistently poised and professional, or may have demonstrated uncertainty. Speech may have been somewhat difficult to hear or follow. Responses in Q&A suggest that questions were only partially understood or answered.	The presenter was not easily audible or did not speak in clear sentences. Posture may have appeared disengaged. Responses in Q&A suggested that the questions may not have been understood, or answers were unclear/non-responsive.