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 • Anticipates audience
25 points • Use of proper question or work • Logical • Charts summarize data findings to broader questions
language • Has advanced progression and/or conclusions context • Understands audience
• Significance clearly understanding of he • Speaks with • Size and labels are clear • Understands implication questions
stated experimental approach good pacing • Very little text of data or method • Can integrate
• Previous work sets and significance • Makes eye • Figures and images • Identifies future avenues knowledge to answer
the stage for this • Critically evaluates contact and does explained and described of investigation questions
study results, methodology not read well • Supports arguments or • Thoroughly responds
• Handout and and/or conclusions information • AV set up properly explanation with to questions
bibliography • Scientifically rigorous • Uses engaging references
provided for and well researched tone and
audience vocabulary
Good • Well thought out • Identifies the research • Spends too much • Excellent images but • Minimally integrates • Does not anticipate
20 points • Use of proper question or work time on not always well placed research findings to audience questions
language • Has basic introduction • Size and labels are clear broader context • Understands the
• Significance clearly understanding of the • Speaks well, but • Very little text • Has some understanding audience questions
stated experimental approach often back tracks • Figures and charts are of the implications of • Can integrate
• Handout and and significance • Makes good eye explained well data or method knowledge to answer
bibliography • Critically evaluates contact and looks • AV mishaps resolved • Identifies some future the question
provided for results, methodology at notes avenues of investigation • Thoroughly responds
audience and/or conclusions occasionally • Supports arguments or to most questions
• Well researched • Uses good explanation with
vocabulary and references
tone
Adequate • Talk a bit • Research question a bit • Presentation • Labels and legends are • Does not integrate the • Does not anticipate
15 point disorganized unclear poorly timed a bit unclear work or method into the audience questions
• Shows some effort • Description of • Presentation • Size might be a bit too broader context • Makes an effort to
to use proper experimental approach jumping from small • Supports argument or address question
language a bit confusing different topics • Too much detail explanation with few • Can address some
• Significance a bit • Results and • Some hesitation • Blocks of text on references questions
unclear conclusions stated but and uncertainty handouts or slides • Makes some errors in • Overlooks obvious
• Handout and not critically evaluated are apparent • Figures are explained interpretation and questions
bibliography are • No use of outside • Makes little eye well application of data or • Often responds poorly
not well formatted readings contact • AV mishaps resolved method to questions
• Monotone and • Makes few connections
non-engaging between data, method,
delivery and conclusions
Inadequate 10 • Talk difficult to • Does not understand • Presentation • Labeling is not clear • Does not integrate the • Either makes no effort
points follow research or work poorly timed • Too small to see work or method into the to respond to
• Unclear language • Does not understand • Jumbled with no • No logical placement broader context questions or does so
• Does not experimental approach logical • Mostly text and very • Makes little effort to use poorly
understand • Does not understand progression few images data to support
significance of conclusions or • Makes no eye • Figures are not arguments
paper recognize implications contact and reads explained • Misinterprets
• No handout or for future work from notes • AV mishaps unresolved information
bibliography • Hesitation and • Makes no connections
uncertainty are between data, method,
apparent and conclusions
• Lacks logic
No effort
0 points