Scribd
Upload
6K views3 pages

Rubrics For Feasibility Defense

The document provides a rubric for evaluating oral presentations on feasibility studies for proposed restaurants. It rates presentations on a scale of 1 to 6 for introduction, organization, delivery, content, and response to questions. A score of 30 or higher is needed to pass. Panel members use the rubric to assess each presentation and provide an overall recommendation and comments for improvement.

Uploaded by

Zhenie Velasco
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6K views3 pages

Rubrics For Feasibility Defense

The document provides a rubric for evaluating oral presentations on feasibility studies for proposed restaurants. It rates presentations on a scale of 1 to 6 for introduction, organization, delivery, content, and response to questions. A score of 30 or higher is needed to pass. Panel members use the rubric to assess each presentation and provide an overall recommendation and comments for improvement.

Uploaded by

Zhenie Velasco
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

University of Santo Tomas College of Education Department of Nutrition & Dietetics Food Service Systems II Semester: ____ Academic

Year _____

Rubrics for Feasibility Defense Evaluation


Date: Name of Proposed Restaurant: Group No. ___ Year/Section ___

I. ORAL PRESENTATION DEFENSE Instruction: Please encircle the number and check the key phrases that best describe the feasibility study.

A. Introduction Emerging 1
Comments: B. Organization

Developing 3

Well done 4
Comments:

Excellent 5 6

Little or no introduction

Interesting or engaging introduction

Emerging 1
Comments:

Developing 2 3

Well done 5

Excellent 6

Disorganized or poorly organized

Well organized and easy to follow smooth transitions Comments:

C. Delivery Emerging 1

Developing 2

Well done 5

Excellent 6

Manuscript was read or seemed memorized Speech was too slow/fast/soft Eye contact lacking or absent Delivery unsure, uncomfortable, stiff, unprepared

Speech was clear, smooth and articulate Voice projection and spacing effective Eye contact appropriate, help connect to panelists Delivery comfortable, poised and prepared

Comments:

Comments:

D. Content Emerging 1

Developing 2

Well done 5

Excellent 6

Paper and presentation highly technical for audience Terms undefined or minimally defined; background information lacking; or assumptions lacking Presentation deficient in evaluation and synthesis

General audience can understand the paper presentation Key terms defined and necessary information provided Assumptions surfaced

Comments:

Presentation information evaluated and well synthesized Comments:

E. Response to Questions Emerging 1 2

Developing 3

Well done 5

Excellent 6

Misunderstands questions ; sometimes can not answer questions Comments:

Answers questions well with reference to own work; shows knowledge of subject Comments:

Final Recommendation:
Needs minor revision Needs major revision Fail TOTAL SCORE Pass with Distinction Excellent Pass/Well Done TOTAL SCORE

Members of the Panel: ____________________ Print Name & Signature ____________________ Print Name & Signature ____________________ Print Name & Signature

Faculty-In Charge:

_____________________ Print Name & Signature

Comments/Suggestions:

You might also like