Rubric for Assessment of Oral Communication Skills

Rubric for Assessment of Oral Communication Skills (for Individual Presentations)


The rubric below is used to evaluate students' presentations with respect to the program outcome (g), an ability to communicate effectively, in both Software and Systems Engineering and in the capstone courses. Team presentations in the capstone courses are evaluated using a slightly different rubric . The results of the evaluations are discussed regularly (typically once a year) by the Department; possible changes in the program to address any widespread problems are considered based on this evaluation and the discussion.

Rubric: The student's presentation is evaluated along four dimensions, these having to do respectively with the organization of the presentation, the mechanics (mainly quality of slides), effectiveness of delivery, and how well the speaker relates to the audience. Each of these dimensions is assigned a score of 1 through 4, these values representing increasing degrees of achievement in the particular dimension, as described in the table below in the rows corresponding to the various dimensions. The last column are the actual scores assigned to this particular student's presentation along the four dimensions. The overall total score is assigned by simply adding together the scores corresponding to the four dimensions.

Some of the ideas for this rubric came from the one at:

Name of person being evaluated: ________________________________________
Course and quarter of evaluation: ________________________________________

  1 2 3 4 Points
Organization Audience cannot understand presentation because of poor organization; introduction is undeveloped or irrelevant; main points and conclusion are unclear; Audience has difficulty following presentation because of some abrupt jumps; some of the main points are unclear or not sufficient stressed; Satisfactory organization; clear introduction; main points are well stated, even if some transitions are somewhat sudden; clear conclusion; Superb organization; clear introduction; main points well stated and argued, with each leading to the next point of the talk; clear summary and conclusion.  
Mechanics Slides seem to have been cut-and pasted together haphazardly at the last minute; numerous mistakes; speaker not always sure what is coming next; Boring slides; no glaring mistakes but no real effort made into creating truly effective slides; Generally good set of slides; conveys the main points well; Very creative slides; carefully thought out to bring out both the main points as well as the subtle issues while keeping the audience interested.  
Delivery Mumbles the words, audience members in the back can't hear anything; too many filler words; distracting gestures; Low voice, occasionally inaudible; some distracting filler words and gestures; articulation mostly, but not always, clear; Clear voice, generally effective delivery; minimal distracting gestures, etc., but somewhat monotone; Natural, confident delivery that does not just convey the message but enhances it; excellent use of volume, pace etc.  
Relating to audience Reads most of the presentation from the slides or notes with no eye contact with audience members; seems unaware of audience reactions; Occasional eye contact with audience but mostly reads the presentation; some awareness of at least a portion of the audience; only brief responses to audience questions; Generally aware of the audience reactions; maintains good eye contact when speaking and when answering questions; Keeps the audience engaged throughout the presentation; modifies material on-the-fly based on audience questions and comments; keenly aware of audience reactions.  

Evaluator's name: ________________________________________
Date of evaluation: ________________________________________

Topic revision: r1 - 2013-10-17 - JimSkon
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright &© by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback