sample oral presentation marking criteria

SAMPLE ORAL PRESENTATION MARKING CRITERIA 1. INFORMAL PEER FEEDBACK ON ORAL PRESENTATION Give feedback on each presentation using the following table NAME OF PRESENTER 1- NOT WELL ACHIEVED 2 3 4- VERY WELL ACHIEVED COMMENTS Delivery Clearly presented Organised and easy to follow Engaged with the audience Obvious enthusiasm for topic Visual aids

presentation. Does not read off slides. Presenter’s voice is clear. The pace is a little slow or fast at times. Most audience members can hear presentation. Presenter’s voice is low. The pace is much too rapid/slow. Audience members have difficulty hearing presentation. Presenter mumbles, talks very fast, and speaks too quietly

Criteria . Weak Fair Good Strong Best . Organization : ... Scoring Rubric for Oral Presentations: Example #1 Author: Testing and Evaluation Services

Oral Presentation Evaluation Rubric, Formal Setting . PRESENTER: Non-verbal skills (Poise) 5 4 3 2 1 Comfort Relaxed, easy presentation with minimal hesitation Generally comfortable appearance, occasional hesitation Somewhat comfortable appearance, some hesitation Generally uncomfortable, difficulty with flow of presentation Completely

Oral Presentation: Scoring Guide. 1.) Organization • 4 points – Clear organization, reinforced by media. Stays focused throughout. • 3 points – Mostly organized, but loses focus once or twice. • 2 points – Somewhat organized, but loses focus 3 or more times. • 1 point – No clear organization to the presentation. 2.)

ExcellentCRITERIA Fair Good Needs Work Comments (4) SPEECH • pace was varied and not too rushed • volume was appropriate • intonation varied & appropriate • pronunciation and articulation were clear • grammar accurate (5) VISUAL AIDS • equipment handled with confidence • introduced at appropriate times • were legible

Acceptable Presentation is missing some content required by audience; some language used inappropriately (e.g., unfamiliar . jargon, too much jargon) Some Weaknesses Presentation is missing a substantial portion of content required by audience; uses some inappropriate or ineffective language

MKTG 489 Grading Rubric for Oral Presentations Criteria Very Poor* Poor* Average* Good* Excellent* Score Introduction No Introduction used. Is underdeveloped and irrelevant Makes the audience curious to hear about the topic Gets audience attention immediately by starting with a statement/ relevant humor Introduction is new, original and

Oral presentations that receive a bottom‐half score demonstrate that the speaker is unable to communicate a message effectively: the speaker fails to craft and develop an appropriate central idea, and he or she fails to integrate appropriate supporting material into the speech. The speaker’s verbal

graded – are described in either the Assessment Criteria for Oral Presentations and Commentaries or the Assessment Criteria for Oral Presentations for the level of your module. If the Assessment Criteria for Oral Presentationsare used, the criteria against which your work will be marked fall into three categories: Knowledge and understanding: