Page 315 - Area III Parameter C

CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY-TRECE MARTIRES CITY CAMPUS

Scoring Rubric for Oral Presentation/Written Summary of Scientific Research Papers (for written omit Style/Delivery column) Adapted from Brewer, C.A., and D. Ebert-May.
1998. Hearing the case for genetic engineering: breaking down the barriers of anonymity through student hearings in the large lecture hall. Journal of College Science Teaching 28 (2):
97-101.

Level of Clarity Content Style/Delivery Use of Visual Aids Integration of Ability to Answer
Achievement Knowledge Questions

Excellent • Well thought out • Identifies the research • Uses time wisely • Well placed images • Integrates research findings • Anticipates audience
4 Points • Use of proper language question or work • Logical progression • Charts summarize data to broader context questions
• Significance clearly stated • Has advanced • Speaks with good pacing and/or conclusions • Understands implication of • Understands audience
• Previous work sets the stage
understanding of he
• Size and labels are clear
data or method
• Makes eye contact and
questions
for this study experimental approach does not read information • Very little text • Identifies future avenues of • Can integrate knowledge
• Handout and bibliography and significance • Uses engaging tone and • Figures and images investigation to answer questions
provided for audience • Critically evaluates results, vocabulary explained and described • Supports arguments or • Thoroughly responds to
methodology and/or well explanation with references questions
conclusions • AV set up properly
• Scientifically rigorous and
well researched
Good • Well thought out • Identifies the research • Spends too much time on • Excellent images but • Supports arguments or • Does not anticipate
3 Points • Use of proper language question or work introduction not always well placed explanation with references audience questions
• Size and labels are clear
• Speaks well, but often
• Significance clearly stated
• Minimally integrates
•Has basic understanding of
• Understands the
• Handout and bibliography the experimental approach back tracks • Very little text research findings to broader audience questions
provided for audience and significance • Makes good eye contact • Figures and charts are context • Can integrate knowledge
• Critically evaluates results, and looks at notes explained well • Has some understanding of to answer the question
methodology and/or occasionally • AV mishaps resolved the implications of data or • Thoroughly responds to
conclusions • Uses good vocabulary method most questions
• Well researched and tone • Identifies some future
avenues of investigation
Adequate • Talk a bit disorganized • Research question a bit • Presentation poorly timed • Labels and legends are a • Does not integrate the • Does not anticipate
2 Points • Shows some effort unclear • Presentation jumping bit unclear work or method into the audience questions
to use proper language • Description of from different topics • Size might be a bit too broader context • Makes an effort to
experimental approach a bit
• Significance a bit unclear
small
• Supports argument or
• Some hesitation and
address question
• Handout and bibliography confusing uncertainty are apparent • Too much detail explanation with few • Can address some
are not well formatted • Results and conclusions • Makes little eye contact • Blocks of text on references questions
stated but not critically • Monotone and non- handouts or slides • Makes some errors in • Overlooks obvious
evaluated engaging delivery • Figures are explained interpretation and application questions
• No use of outside readings well of data or method • Often responds poorly
• AV mishaps resolved • Makes few connections to questions
between data, method, and
conclusions
Inadequate • Talk difficult to follow • Does not understand • Presentation poorly timed • Labeling is not clear • Does not integrate the • Either makes no effort to
1 Points • Unclear language research or work • Jumbled with no logical • Too small to see work or method into the respond to questions or
• Does not understand • Does not understand progression • No logical placement broader context does so poorly
• Makes little effort to use
• Makes no eye contact
experimental approach
significance of paper

• Mostly text and very few
• No handout or bibliography • Does not understand and reads from notes images data to support arguments
conclusions or recognize • Hesitation and • Figures are not explained • Misinterprets information
implications for future work uncertainty are apparent • AV mishaps unresolved Makes no connections
between data, method, and
conclusions
• Lacks logic
No effort
0 Points

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

VIENNA MI A. FERANIL JOYCE ERIKA A. SENARIS NOEL A. SEDIGO, MSc
Assistant Professor I Department Chairperson Campus Administrator