Criteria for grading an oral presentation report

1. SouthernCityColleges
Pilar St., Zamboanga City
Senior High School Department
SY 2016-2017
Rubrics for Feasibility Defense Evaluation
Date: ______________ Group No. ________
Year/Section: __________________ Name of Proposal: ___________
I. ORAL PRESENTATION DEFENSE (For Panelists/Judges Only)
Instruction: Please encircle the number and check the key phrases that best describe the feasibility
study.
A. INTRODUCTION
Emerging Developing Well done Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6
 Little or no introduction
Comments: _____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
 Interesting or engaging introduction
Comments:
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
B. ORGANIZATION
Emerging Developing Well done Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6
 Disorganized or poorly organized
Comments: ____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
 Well organized and easy to follow
 smooth transitions
Comments: ____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
C. DELIVERY
Emerging Developing Well done Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6
 Manuscript was read or seemed memorized
 Speech was too slow/fast/soft
 Eye contact lacking or absent
 Delivery unsure, uncomfortable, stiff,
unprepared
Comments: _____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
 Speech was clear, smooth and articulate
 Voice projection and spacing effective
 Eye contact appropriate, help connect to
panelists
 Delivery comfortable, poised and prepared
Comments: ____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________

2. D. CONTENT
Emerging Developing Well done Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6
 Paper and presentation highly technical
for audience
 Terms undefined or minimally defined;
background informations lacking; or
assumptions lacking
 Presentation deficient in evaluation and
synthesis
Comments: _____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
 General audience can understand the
paper presentation
 Key terms defined and necessary
information provided
 Assumptions surfaced
 Presentation information evaluated and well
synthesized
Comments: ____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
E. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
Emerging Developing Well done Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6
 Misunderstands questions ; sometimes
cannot answer questions
Comments: _____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
 Answers questions well with reference to
own work;
shows knowledge of subject
Comments: ____________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________