| Criteria | Exemplary | Good | Satisfactory | Marginal | Needs Improvement | Score |
| 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
|
|
Purpose: Clearly provided motivation and context to the topic:
why is this important, how does it relate to things we've studied?
|
| | |
Motivation and context are presented memorably.
|
| |
| | |
The audience knows exactly why the topic is important and how it
fits.
|
| |
| | |
There is an attempt at giving context and motivation
|
| |
| | |
Either the context or motivation is not given.
|
| |
| | |
Neither context nor motivation is given.
|
| |
| |
| |
Description (×2): Described the approach to solving
the problem clearly.
|
| |
| | |
Audience understands exactly what has been done.
|
| |
| | |
Audience has a solid idea what was done.
|
| |
| | |
Audience can moderately understand the accomplishments.
|
| |
| | |
Audience cannot be sure what was accomplished.
|
| |
| | |
Audience asks, "A problem was solved?"
|
| |
| |
| |
Lessons: Described any problems overcome or lessons learned.
|
| |
| | |
Summary of challenges and lessons was very good.
|
| |
| | |
Description of problems was clear and lessons are okay.
|
| |
| | |
A few challenges and lessons were shared.
|
| |
| | |
Something might have been learned.
|
| |
| | |
It was not clear any challenges were faced or anything was learned
so far.
|
| |
| |
| |
Demonstration (×2): Gave an understandable demonstration
(or screen shots) of the system.
|
| |
| | |
The demo makes the audience want to buy it.
|
| |
| | |
The demo was well-planned.
|
| |
| | |
The demo was easy to follow.
|
| |
| | |
Some parts of the demo were hard to follow.
|
| |
| | |
There was no demonstration that could be followed.
|
| |
| |
| |
Materials: Visual aids are clear, correct, and help anchor
the presentation content.
|
| |
| | |
Slides or boardwork were outstanding, anchoring, and memorable.
|
| |
| | |
Slides or boardwork were clear and highlighted the content.
|
| |
| | |
Slides or boardwork were legible.
|
| |
| | |
Some slides or boardwork were hard to read.
|
| |
| | |
Slides or boardwork could not be read.
|
| |
| |
| |
Time: Time usage allowed material to be adequately explained.
|
| |
| | |
Topics were balanced and completed with time for a question/suggestion.
|
| |
| | |
Necessary topics were covered adequately.
|
| |
| | |
All material was at least briefly covered.
|
| |
| | |
Some topics were skipped, time was unnecessarily wasted, or the presentation
was too short.
|
| |
| | |
Time management was a trainwreck.
|
| |
| |
| |
Oral Skills: Presenter(s) faced the audience, making eye
contact, enunciating well with no distracting mannerisms.
|
| |
| | |
The presentation was so good it was a shame they had to stop.
|
| |
| | |
Eye contact was frequent and speakers had a clear voice.
|
| |
| | |
Speakers could largely be understood.
|
| |
| | |
Some speakers were hard to understand occasionally.
|
| |
| | |
Most of the speaking was hard to understand.
|
| |
| |
| |
Polish: Clearly rehearsed with positive attitude, enthusiasm,
and audience interaction.
|
| |
| | |
The audience is converted and wants to join the presenters' team.
|
| |
| | |
Speakers were relaxed, knew their material.
|
| |
| | |
Speakers seemed positive.
|
| |
| | |
Speakers seemed unsure of themselves.
|
| |
| | |
Speaker appeared embarassed to be presenting.
|
| |
| |
| | | | | | | |
| Total | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | /50 |
|