Internal
Links
Top
|
|
Outline on the
Oral Presentation Rubric
|
|
External
Links
|
| |
Oral communication is defined as
the ability to convey ideas/information in a fashion that is clear, ordered,
and well-supported; that reflects the ability of the speaker to respond
to the audience as well as to make a prepared statement; and to employ
for the purpose a style that is appropriate to the occasion. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Presentation Title: |
Date: |
|
|
| |
Evaluator’s Name: (Optional): |
|
| |
Rating scale: 1 = Far Below Average
2 = Below Average 3 = Average 4 = Good
5 = Excellent |
|
| |
A. Ability to present a main thesis in a clear
manner.
5 Overall intent is unmistakable; audience has compelling
reason to listen; speaker’s credibility is explicitly stated or clear
4 Overall intent clear; audience reason to listen clear;
speaker credibility good
3 A topic is introduced; audience reason to listen may
be vague or unclear; credibility is identified
2 Topic/intent vague; speaker’s credibility unclear;
speaker credibility unclear
1 Intent of presentation is not identifiable; audience
has no reason to listen; speaker has no credibility
Comments: |
|
| |
B. Ability to present main points/ideas in a clear
manner.
5 Points are clearly related to and support thesis; points/ideas
emerge w/thorough logic; cues and transitions direct
4 Points relate to thesis; points/ideas emerge fairly
clearly; cues and transitions fairly direct
3 Points/ideas may not all be directly related to thesis;
may cues/transitions direct; many ideas communicated
2 Points/ideas only tangentially applicable; logical
progression vague; cues vague; rambles somewhat
1 No points are identifiable; lacks any logical progress;
no clear cues or transitions at all
Comments: |
|
| |
C. Ability to present sufficient research/arguments
to support thesis.
5 Has excellent knowledge of & effectively uses relevant
literature/theory
4 Has good knowledge of & often effectively uses
relevant literature/theory
3 Has acceptable understanding of literature/theory;
may use ineffectively in areas
2 Has less than satisfactory understanding of literature/theory;
does not effectively apply to thesis
1 Appears to have no understanding of or ability to use
literature/theory whatsoever
Comments: |
|
| |
D. Use of language (grammatically and field-specifically)
appropriate.
5 Language/syntax correct, even elegant; topic-applicable;
free from error; direct and tactful
4 Language/syntax consistently correct; largely topic-applicable;
mostly free from error; mostly direct
3 Language/syntax generally correct, with few errors
of usage or application; tactful
2 Language/syntax sometimes correct; many errors of usage
and application
1 Language/syntax completely inappropriate or incorrectly
applied; lacking tact or direction
Comments: |
|
| |
E. Visual aids appropriate for the context and
field.
5 Visual aids are appropriate, professional, interesting,
and thoroughly enhance presentation.
4 Visual aids appropriate but may be unexciting;
enhance presentation
3 Visual aids are appropriate but not as professional
(handmade charts versus Power Point); enhance presentation somewhat
2 Visual aids poorly executed; have little relevance
to presentation; little reference made to them
1 Visual aids nonexistent or irrelevant; little to no
reference made to them
Comments: |
|