iRubric: Demonstrations - Fall 2013 rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Demonstrations - Fall 2013

Oral Presentations - Spring 2015

This is the rubric for grading demonstrations in the Integrated Projects Curriculum of Messiah College Engineering Department. (v1.0, created 09/13 by TV from Oral Presentation Rubric)

Rubric Code: SAA665

By mcengin

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Engineering

Type: Presentation

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Oral Presentations This is the rubric for grading demonstrations in the Integrated Projects Curriculum of Messiah College Engineering Department.
	Exemplary/Excellent 5 pts	Accomplished/Good 4 pts	Developing/Fair 3 pts	Deficient/Poor 2 pts
Mechanics These items will be individually graded.
Appearance and voice 1 pts •Volume – loud enough •Clarity – good diction •Distractors – very few, if any, ums and ers •Good word choice •Good eye contact •Appropriately dressed	Exemplary/Excellent Meets all six points	Accomplished/Good Lacks one of the points.	Developing/Fair Lacks two of the points.	Deficient/Poor Lacks more than two points.
Presentation 3 pts Did the presenter speak clearly (understandably)?Was it obvious the material had been rehearsed?	Exemplary/Excellent Presenter was very confident (demonstrated a sense that the presenter knew what they were doing) in delivery. Preparation very evident.	Accomplished/Good Presenter was occasionally confident with their presentation, however the presentation was not as engaging as it could have been. Preparation was evident.	Developing/Fair Presenter was not consistent with the level of confidence and preparedness shown, but had some strong moments. Preparation was somewhat evident.	Deficient/Poor Presenter appeared unconfident and demonstrated little evidence of planning prior to presentation.
Organization 3 pts Was the presentation well organized and easy to follow?	Exemplary/Excellent Presentation well organized, well prepared, and easy to follow.	Accomplished/Good Presentation had organizing ideas, but there were a few gaps that made parts difficult to follow.	Developing/Fair Presentation had minimal signs of organization and was difficult to follow as a whole.	Deficient/Poor Presentation lacked organization.
Audience Awareness 3 pts Did the presenter engage the audience? Were they aware that they may be addressing people who may not be experts?	Exemplary/Excellent Presenter did an excellent job of engaging the audience and accurately explained technical jargon and project specific terms.	Accomplished/Good Presenter engaged the audience, but did not explain all necessary technical jargon and project specific terms.	Developing/Fair Presenter minimally engaged the audience and explained less than 50% of the technical jargon.	Deficient/Poor Presenter failed to engage the audience (audience seemed unnecessary to the presentation) and did not explain technical jargon.
Content These items will be given the same grade for all members of the group.
The story: Goal 3 pts What question are presenters trying to answer?	Exemplary/Excellent The goal is well defined and a compelling reason for it in terms of the entire project is given.	Accomplished/Good The goal is defined, but the reason for completing the MVP in terms of the project is vague.	Developing/Fair The goal is loosely defined and no reason is given for why this MVP is important to the project.	Deficient/Poor Purpose is not defined nor connected to the project.
The story: Method 3 pts How was this question or purpose explored (method)? Evidence / development – includes more specific, concrete evidence (or details) than opinion or abstract, general commentary	Exemplary/Excellent Shows how the question was explored. Gives concrete, specific evidence and not just opinion, abstract or general commentary.	Accomplished/Good Shows how the question was explored. Evidence has some concrete aspects, but contains opinion and general commentary.	Developing/Fair Shows a weak connection to the question and method of exploration. Evidence has little concrete aspects and is mostly opinion.	Deficient/Poor Does not relate goal to method used.
The story: Outcome 3 pts What was the outcome (short results statement)?	Exemplary/Excellent Gives a concise results statement. and discusses the impact of the outcome on the project as a whole.	Accomplished/Good Gives a concise results statement, but the impact of the outcome on the project as a whole is vague.	Developing/Fair Results are loosely defined and there is no discussion on the impact of these results on the project as a whole.	Deficient/Poor No results are given.
Use of Artifacts 3 pts Were the presenters able to use the artifact that was produced?	Exemplary/Excellent Use of artifact really helped clarify the work that was accomplished.	Accomplished/Good The artifact was explained in the presentation .	Developing/Fair Artifact was shown, but not utilized in presentation.	Deficient/Poor No artifact shown.
Answering Questions 2 pts Were the presenters able to answer questions from the audience?	Exemplary/Excellent Presenters had clearly thought about all aspects of the project and were able to answer questions well.	Accomplished/Good Presenters were able to answer all questions satisfactorily.	Developing/Fair Presenters were able to answer some questions, but did not give good answers to other questions.	Deficient/Poor Presenters seemed unable to talk about their project in any way other than their prepared talk.
Accepting Feedback 2 pts How did the presenters handle feedback?	Exemplary/Excellent Presenters clearly appreciated feedback and seemed ready to incorporate feedback into future MVPs.	Accomplished/Good Presenters accepted feedback.	Developing/Fair Presenters seemed uninterested in feedback.	Deficient/Poor Presenters were defensive about feedback.

Keywords:

IPC, Oral Presentations

Subjects:

Engineering

Types:

Presentation

Discuss this rubric