This document contains details of a student's oral presentation assessment. It includes the student's name, module and presentation title, as well as the overall grade of 74%, placing the work in the upper second classification. The assessment criteria are divided into five sections - structure, delivery, visual aids, content and handling of questions. For each section, descriptors are provided for performance levels ranging from excellent to highly insufficient. Feedback on the student's presentation notes their good slides, clear delivery, well-paced structure and description of work experience. A suggestion is made to expand future career discussion. The student is asked to comment on how they will use the feedback.

1. Student Name: Alex Maynard
Module Title: Professional and Scientific Practice 3
Title of coursework Oral Presentation
Marker: Adrian Hall
Overall Grade/Categorical
Mark: 74%
First Upper 2nd Lower 2nd Third Fail
Structure
Looking for:
• introduction
• linked sections
• conclusion
• appropriate length
Introduction and conclusion well
explained.
Sections linked together in a clear,
logical manner,
Key points clearly presented and
discussed
Kept to time.
Introduction and conclusion
appropriate.
Sections linked together in a logical
manner,
Key points clearly presented.
Kept to time.
Introduction and/or conclusion too
brief
Structure only partially logical
Key points included
Slightly over or under time
Introduction and/or conclusion too
brief or irrelevant.
Sections only poorly linked
Many key points missed.
Significantly under or over time.
Introduction and conclusion not
included.
Sections unlinked,
Key points not included.
Significantly under or over to
time.
Delivery
Looking for:
• tone/audibility
• interesting/confident
• pace
Confidently presented, well-paced,
clear audible tone. Good interaction
with audience. Enthusiastic about
topic
Fairly confidently presented, well-
paced, audible tone. Eye contact
with audience.
Showed clear interest in topic
Fairly confidently presented, well-
paced, audible tone May be some
hesitation or reading.
Some interest in topic.
Presentation too fast/slow in
places, speaker could not be heard
at times. Some hesitation or
always reading from script, limited
interest in topic
Presentation too fast/slow,
speaker could not be heard.
Hesitant delivery showing no
interest in topic
Visual Aids
Looking for:
• appropriate content
• well prepared, clear
• used effectively
Clear slides, with excellent use of
appropriate figures, slide content
appropriate to presentation, slides
used effectively, very well prepared
and coherent.
Clear slides, with appropriate
figures, slide content appropriate to
presentation, slides used effectively
and well prepared.
Mainly clear slides but some dense
text . Limited use of figures.
Content mainly appropriate.
Slides mainly used effectively.
Some errors in preparation.
Over use of text on slides, slide
content not always appropriate to
presentation, slides not always
used effectively, slides not always
well prepared.
Unclear or cluttered slides, over
use of text, slide content
inappropriate to presentation,
slides not used effectively,
unprepared.
Content
Looking for:
• relevant
• well-researched
• appropriate for audience
• shows understanding
Appropriate for audience, with very
relevant content. Well researched,
demonstrating excellent
understanding. Very clear
identification of skills and link to
future career
Appropriate for audience, with
relevant content. Clear research and
understanding demonstrated. Good
identification of skills and attempt to
link to future career
Content mainly appropriate to
audience. Some research and
understanding demonstrated.
Identification of some skills or
attempt to show relevance to
career plans
Some appropriate content for
audience, but mainly irrelevant.
Limited research or understanding
demonstrated.
No skills identified and no linking to
future career
Inappropriate for audience,
content not relevant or
researched, limited
understanding demonstrated. No
skills identified and no linking to
future career
Handling of Questions
Looking for:
• knowledge
• confidence
Confident and clear when answering,
Detailed answer to question asked.
Answer content correct additional
information given.
Confident when answering
questions,
Answer addresses question asked.
Answer content correct.
Answers questions but answers
brief or with some errors.
Attempts to answer questions,
Answers sometimes very brief or
irrelevant..
Answer contains errors.
Unable to answer questions.
Answer does not address
question asked.
Answer contains extensive
errors.

2. Strengths:
Good slides, good use of images. Well-paced, clear delivery.
Good description of work experience and discussion of skills.
Well structured.
Suggestions for Improvement:
You could have perhaps expanded the discussion of future career options a little.
Student comments for Feed-forward (how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?):
Signed: Date: 4th February 2022

3. Class CG% General Characteristics Level 6
FIRST
(Excellent}
96 Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of the area of study; evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and critical
evaluation/synthesis/analysis and of reading/research beyond the prescribed range, in both breadth and depth, to advance work/direct arguments; exceptional
demonstration of relevant skills; excellent communication; performance deemed to be beyond expectation . Work may achieve or be close to publishable or
commercial standard..
89
81 Excellent knowledge and understanding of the area of study as the student is typically able to go beyond what has been taught (particularly for a mid/high 1st
;
evidence of extensive and appropriate selection and critical evaluation/ synthesis/analysis of reading/research beyond the prescribed range, to advance work/direct
arguments; excellent demonstration of relevant skills; excellent communication; performance deemed beyond expectation of the level.
74
UPPER SECOND
(Very good)
68 Very good knowledge and understanding of the area of study as the student is typically able to relate facts/concepts together with some ability to apply to
known/taught contexts; evidence of appropriate selection and critical evaluation of reading/research, some beyond the prescribed range, may rely on set sources to
advance work/direct arguments; demonstrates autonomy in approach to learning; very good demonstration of relevant skills; strong communication skills..
65
62
LOWER SECOND
(Good)
58 Good knowledge and understanding of the area of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical; evidence of appropriate selection and
evaluation of reading/research, some may be beyond the prescribed range, but generally reliant on set sources to advance work/direct arguments; good demonstration
of relevant skills, though may be limited in range; communication shows clarity but structure may not always be coherent .
55
52
THIRD
(Sufficient)
48 Knowledge and understanding is sufficient to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts but fails to make meaningful synthesis; some ability to select and
evaluate reading/research however work may be more generally descriptive; general reliance on set sources to advance work; arguments may be weak or poorly
constructed; adequate demonstration of relevant skills over a limited range;communication/presentation is generally competent but with some weaknesses.
45
42
FAIL
(Insufficient)
35
Insufficient knowledge and understanding of the subject and its underlying concepts; some ability to evaluate given reading/research however work is more generally
descriptive; naively follows or may ignore set material in development of work; given brief may be only tangentially addressed or may ignore key aspects of the brief;
demonstration of relevant skills over a reduced range; communication shows limited clarity, poor presentation, structure may not be coherent.
25
15
Highly insufficient knowledge or understanding of the area of study; understanding is typically at the word level with facts being reproduced in a disjointed or
decontextualised manner; fails to address the outcomes addressed by the brief; typically ignores important sources in development of work and data/evidence
inappropriately used; weak technical and practical competence hampers ability to
demonstrate/communicate achievement of outcomes.
5
Zero 0 Work of no merit OR absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases.