oral presentation rubric science

Skip to content
Skip to search
Staff portal (Inside the department)
Student portal
Key links for students

Other users

Forgot password

Notifications

{{item.title}}, my essentials, ask for help, contact edconnect, directory a to z, how to guides, science k–12, oral presentation rubric for science.

This rubric can be used for oral presentations in assessment tasks.

Oral presentation rubric science (DOCX 46 KB)

Please note:

Syllabus outcomes and content descriptors from Science and Technology 7-10 Syllabus © NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) for and on behalf of the Crown in right of the State of New South Wales, 2018

Marking guidelines for science

Stages 4 and 5 – provides examples of marking guidelines that can be used for assessment tasks in Science 7-10 and Stage 6 science courses.

Science skills rubric

Stages 4 and 5 – A rubric for science skills of planning, methodology, processing data, concluding and communication that can be used in assessment tasks.

Planning, programming and assessing science 7–10

Advice and support including units, scope and sequences and other resources to help you plan, program and assess science 7–10.

Utility Menu

de5f0c5840276572324fc6e2ece1a882

How to Use This Site
Core Competencies

Research Presentation Rubric

The format of research presentations can vary across and within disciplines. Use this rubric (PDF) to identify and assess elements of research presentations, including delivery strategies and slide design. This resource focuses on research presentations but may be useful beyond.

help_outline help

iRubric: Oral Presentation Rubric

'; } delete Do more...

Rubric Code: By Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Type: Grade Levels: (none)

TED Talk

Oral Presentation
Presentation

18 Biocore Oral Presentation Rubric

4=excellent

With a few minor exceptions, the team clearly, concisely, & thoroughly conveyed their research project such that the audience could grasp & evaluate the work. The presentation contained all of these key components: 1. a clear, logical biological rationale summarizing research goals, key concepts, unfamiliar terminology, & knowledge gaps to be addressed, referencing appropriate literature; 2. concise, complete hypothesis statement; 3. clear explanation of methods, particularly those unfamiliar to audience; 4. comprehensible graph(s) of results (or expected results); 5. clear & logical conclusions based on data (or expected data) & implications; 6. summary of assumptions that were supported or incorrect and any relevant problems/errors. 7. Audience questions after the presentation were answered logically and fully.

3=very good	Team clearly, concisely, & thoroughly conveyed all but 1 key component OR clearly covers all key components but could be more concise and/or clear. e.g., clearly & thoroughly conveyed all key components but could have been more concise.
2=good	Team clearly, concisely, & thoroughly conveyed all but two key components OR clearly covers all but one key component but could have been presented more clearly, concisely and/or thoroughly.
1=adequate	Team clearly, concisely, & thoroughly conveyed all but 3 key components and could be more concise and/or clear OR clearly covers all but 2 key components but those presented could have been done much more clearly, concisely, and/or thoroughly.
0=inadequate	Team’s presentation was missing 4-5 key components; those stated were unclear and/or were not stated concisely.

Organization

4=excellent

With a few minor exceptions, the presentation content was logically organized in a way that facilitated the audience’s comprehension.

3=very good	The presentation content was logically organized so that only a few minor clarifications were necessary after the presentation.
2=good	Most of the presentation content was logically organized, but some key clarifications were necessary after the presentation.
1=adequate	Only some of the presentation content was logically organized, and so many key clarifications were necessary after the presentation.
0=inadequate	The presentation content was not logically organized and so did not facilitate the audience’s comprehension.

4=excellent

Effective teamwork contributed to the success of the presentation because it met these criteria: 1. each team member’s contribution to the presentation was equivalent; 2. each team member contributed answers to questions asked after the presentation, to the best of their ability; 3. teammates were respectful of each speaker and did not interrupt them.

3=very good	Teamwork was largely effective; 2 of the 3 criteria were fully met.
2=good	Teamwork was somewhat effective; 1 of the 3 criteria was fully met.
1=adequate	Teamwork was not effective because none of the three criteria was fully met.
0=inadequate	No teamwork was evident.

4=excellent

With a few minor exceptions, the visuals accompanying the oral narrative very effectively conveyed the research project because they satisfied these criteria: 1. content was relevant; 2. overall appearance was pleasing to the eye but did not distract from the research; 3. font size, graphs, & figures were large enough to be viewed easily; 4. font, graph, & figure *colors contrasted well against background & so were easy to see; 5. content (text, graphics) filled with just enough information to be informative without looking overcrowded; 6. graphs and figures were clearly labeled, had titles (no legends necessary), and effectively displayed relevant data/trends; 7. organization & formatting emphasized pertinent points. *colors optional

3=very good	The visuals used satisfied all but one of the key criteria.
2=good	The visuals used satisfied all but 2-3 of the key criteria.
1=adequate	The visuals used satisfied all but 4-5 of the key criteria.
0=inadequate	The visuals used satisfied only 1-2 of the key criteria.

Presentation Mechanics

4=excellent

With a few minor exceptions, the presentation mechanics allowed the research project to be very effectively conveyed because they satisfied these criteria: 1. the rate, flow, and clarity of delivery by each speaker was appropriate; 2. all speakers were introduced; 3. each speaker’s voice was loud enough to be heard in the back of the room; 4. each speaker spoke to the audience in a narrative style, avoiding distracting mannerisms; 5. transitions between speakers were smooth and helped audience follow the presentation; 6. graph & figure axes labeling were explained clearly before trends/results were emphasized; 7. content was presented long enough to allow audience to follow easily; 8. presentation ended with final conclusion statement(s); 9. presentation took 15 +/- 1 min. (varies w/ assignment).

3=very good	The presentation mechanics satisfied all but one to two of the key criteria.
2=good	The presentation mechanics satisfied all but 3-4 of the key criteria.
1=adequate	The presentation mechanics satisfied all but 5-6 of the key criteria.
0=inadequate	The presentation mechanics satisfied only 1-2 of the key criteria.

Rubric Scores to Letter Grade Conversion Guide


	Team earned a “4” in Content and Organization, earned a “3” or better in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics.
	Team did not meet minimum criteria for an “A”, but earned a “3” or better in Content and Organization. Earned a “2” or better in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics.
	Team did not meet minimum criteria for an “AB”, but earned a “2” or better in Content and Organization. Earned a “2” or better in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics.
	Team did not meet minimum criteria for a “B”, but earned a “2” in Content and a “1” in Organization OR vice versa. Earned a “1” or better in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics.
	Team did not meet minimum criteria for a “BC”, but earned a “1” or better in Content and Organization. Received no more than one zero in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics.
	Team did not meet minimum criteria for a “C”, but earned a “1” or better in either Content or Organization. Received no more than two zeros in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics.
	Team did not meet minimum criteria for a “D.”

Download Biocore rubrics in PDF format

Process of Science Companion: Science Communication Copyright © 2017 by University of Wisconsin-Madison Biology Core Curriculum (Biocore) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Browse Course Material

Course info.

Karen Boiko

Departments

Comparative Media Studies/Writing

As Taught In

Media Studies
Technical Writing
Communication

Learning Resource Types

Science writing and new media: science writing for the public, oral presentation rubric.

« Back to Book Talk

For each presenter, two listeners will be designated to fill out an evaluation form. The instructor will evaluate each presenter, too. These forms will be skimmed by the instructor and then given to the presenters.

Follows guidelines.
Generates interest among listeners.
Presents information in a sequence that’s easy to follow.
Provides emphasis: What’s important? What’s especially interesting about this book?
Points are clear: Clear thinking, clear sentences.
The speaker articulates clearly.
S/he speaks fluently—i.e., without a lot of pauses and stumbles—and at a good pace—not too fast.
Volume is appropriate for the space.
Speaker avoids “like,” “you know,” “uh…,” etc. and also avoids upspeak—that is, the speaker doesn’t make statements sound like questions.
Speaker makes frequent eye contact with audience (whole audience and individuals, not just instructor).
Speaker’s posture is alert yet easy, i.e., not stiff.
Speaker smiles and looks confident.
Gestures aid clarity and emphasis and don’t seem random.
Attire need not be formal, but it shouldn’t be so casual or sloppy that it distracts or detracts from your talk.
What was the best thing about the talk?
What would you recommend that the speaker work to improve for next time?

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare