iRubric: Demonstrations - Spring 2015 rubric

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

Demonstrations - Spring 2015

Demonstrations - Fall 2013

This is the rubric for grading MVP demonstrations in the Integrated Projects Curriculum of Messiah College Engineering Department. (v1.0, created 09/13 by TV from Oral Presentation Rubric, v2.0, created 09/14 by TV)

Rubric Code: UXWBX37

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 2 pts Did the presenter speak clearly (understandably)?Was it obvious the material had been prepared and thought out?	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 2 pts Was the discussion well organized and easy to follow?	Exemplary/Excellent Discussion well organized, well prepared, and easy to follow.	Accomplished/Good Discussion had organizing ideas, but there were a few gaps that made parts difficult to follow.	Developing/Fair Discussion had minimal signs of organization and was difficult to follow as a whole.	Deficient/Poor Discussion lacked organization.
Audience Awareness 3 pts Did the presenter engage the audience? Did they draw out comments from all members of the audience?	Exemplary/Excellent Presenter did an excellent job of engaging the audience and got every member involved.	Accomplished/Good Presenter engaged the audience, but not all members of the audience were involved.	Developing/Fair Presenter minimally engaged the audience and much of the audience was not engaged.	Deficient/Poor Presenter failed to engage the audience (audience seemed unnecessary) and very little of the audience was engaged.
Accepting Feedback 2 pts How did the presenter handle feedback?	Exemplary/Excellent Presenter clearly appreciated feedback and seemed ready to incorporate feedback into future MVPs.	Accomplished/Good Presenter accepted feedback.	Developing/Fair Presenter seemed uninterested in feedback.	Deficient/Poor Presenter was defensive about feedback.
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 was well defined and a compelling reason for it in terms of the entire project was given.	Accomplished/Good The goal was defined, but the reason for completing the MVP in terms of the project was vague.	Developing/Fair The goal was loosely defined and no reason was given for why this MVP is important to the project.	Deficient/Poor Purpose was 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 The method used to explore the question was thoroughly explained. Concrete, specific evidence and not just opinion, abstract or general commentary was given.	Accomplished/Good The method used to explore the question was explained. Evidence had some concrete aspects, but contained opinion and general commentary.	Developing/Fair There was a weak connection made between question and method of exploration. Evidence had little concrete aspects and is mostly opinion.	Deficient/Poor Did not relate goal to method used.
The story: Outcome 3 pts What was the outcome (short results statement)?	Exemplary/Excellent Gave a concise results statement. and discussed the impact of the outcome on the project as a whole.	Accomplished/Good Gave a concise results statement, but the impact of the outcome on the project as a whole was vague.	Developing/Fair Results were loosely defined and there was no discussion on the impact of these results on the project as a whole.	Deficient/Poor No results were 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.

Keywords:

IPC, Oral Presentations

Subjects:

Engineering

Types:

Presentation

Discuss this rubric