Team Presentation Rubric - Richland College

ubricteampresentTeam Presentation RubricTeam presentations are evaluated on a variety of aspects of the presentationincluding content, style, graphics, and teamwork.PresentationComponentUnacceptable0 PointsAcceptable1 PointGood2 PointsExcellent3 PointsOverview:introduction ofpresenters, caseor problemand backgrounddescribed, agendadescribed● nointroduction oroverview,background oragenda● introduction ofpresenters butawkward,sketchy orunclear overview/agenda andbackground● confidentand fluentintroduction;clear overview/agenda andbackground,but could bemore completeor polished● confidentintroduction ofroles andcontribution;clear purpose,overview, andagenda;relevant & clearbackground● Style: useeffective verbaland nonverbalcommunicationskills (e.g., voicevolume,inflection, eyecontact, etc.)● poor style(long pauses,readingspeech,"Umm..." andothermannerisms,poor eyecontact,monotone,etc.)● Either fluentdelivery butreading, orawkwarddelivery butspontaneous● generallygood deliveryand spontaneitybut couldimprove● Excellentstyle involvingmatching verbaland nonverbalstyle, goodprojection withinflection,spontaneousspeaking● Vocabulary:appropriate andfluent use ofterms andconcepts● little or noattempt toinclude terms,concepts,authors● use of termsbut not wellrelated, sporadic,misused ormispronounced● good use ofterms but stilluses jargon orforces or isawkward withuse of terms● fluentvocabulary andpronunciationwithoutpretention● Application:appropriate andinsightfulapplication ofprocedures andpractices● little or noinclusion oftechniques,application, orpractices● inaccurate orincomplete use oftechniques● generallygoodapplication, butlack polish,fluency, ororiginality● strongapplication withgood fit,rationale,fluency, andoriginalityhttp://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/Gradingrubrics/rubricteampresent.html (1 of 3)2/23/2008 2:21:59 PM

ubricteampresent● Coverage:thorough andbalanced intreatment of topic● veryincomplete,significantgaps, or biasedtreatment oftopic● eitherthorough butbiased, orincomplete andbalanced● generallythorough andbalanced butawkward,needs moreevidence, orbettersequencing● thoroughcoverage oftopic perassignment withbalancedtreatment ofperspectivesRationale:explainsreasoning andprovides evidence● little or noreasoning,explanation, orevidenceprovided● reasoning andevidencepresented but notwell organized orpoor sources● good logicalreasoning andevidence, butnot integrated● logicalreasoningintegrated withauthoritativereferences onkey pointsGraphics:attractive &balanced layout,legible font● no graphics(may beappropriate insome cases)● graphicspresent but poorquality (illegible,inconsistent, ,etc.)● well donegraphics buttoo much ortoo little, andnot on keypoints● welldesignedandattractivegraphics thatsimplify orsummarize keyideas; originalgraphics● Team Roles:team membershave equivalentroles● unclearteam roles● clear teamroles but unequalcontribution● clear roles,equalcontribution● clear roles,balancedcontribution,good transitionbetweenpresenters,cross referenceeach other● Discussion:team is preparedto facilitatediscussion and isreceptive tofeedback● little or nodiscussion● discussion butwithout clearorganization orpurpose● prepareddiscussionquestions● preparedquestions onkey areas, andresponsive toand elicitparticipantreaction andquestionshttp://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/Gradingrubrics/rubricteampresent.html (2 of 3)2/23/2008 2:21:59 PM

ubricteampresent● Reflection:team can identifywhat it would dodifferently toimprove● little or noreflection● ask forfeedback; somedefensiveness● ask forfeedback andclarifyresponses;generallynondefensive● requestfeedback,clarifyresponses andlink toperformancechanges;positive &curioushttp://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/Gradingrubrics/rubricteampresent.html (3 of 3)2/23/2008 2:21:59 PM