Criteria
|
5
|
3
|
1
|
| Presentation Organization: |
Presentations earning this ranking are well organized; flow well from topic to topic with good transitions; have effective introductions and conclusions |
Presentations earning this ranking appear to have some underlying organization, but the organization is not fully effective; transitions are not well thought out; the presentation may appear to jump from topic to topic. |
Presentations earning this ranking are disorganized and hard to follow. There is no effective introduction or conclusion to the presentation. |
| Effectiveness of communication: |
The presenter is easy to understand; uses language that illustrates the point well; effective use of eye contact and gestures is apparent |
The presenter occasionally is hard to follow, but is, for the most part, understandable. The presenter may rely too much on the slides to make it through the presentation. |
The presenter is difficult to understand; usually is not well prepared for the presentation; appears not to have practiced and may be reading the presentation purely from the slides. |
| Effectiveness of illustrations |
The illustrations (posters or slides or powerpoint) are well-organized, easy to read, and effective convey the information on the slide. |
Most illustrations are well organized and readable. Some may be too busy or use typography that is difficult to read. |
Illustrations are difficult to read, either because of poor color combinations or poor typography. Illustrations are often too busy and do not make the point well. |
Understanding and application
of physics/pedagogical principles: |
The student shows understanding of the principles discussed based upon their exposure to the topics in the classes. Difficult concepts may still be a little fuzzy, but the student grasps the concepts. |
The student lacks some basic understanding of the principles presented, especially of topics covered in the curriculum. Often there is no understanding of the more difficult concepts in the literature presented. |
The student shows little understanding of physics/pedagogic principles. The student may make egregious errors in explaining the topic at hand. |
| Appropriate level for audience: |
The discussion and presentation are at a level appropriate for senior or junior physics/physical sciences majors. |
The discussion is occasionally too simple, focusing on material at a freshman level or may stray at a level more appropriate for graduate seminars. |
The discussion is entirely too remedial or appears to be at a graduate level (only because the student is unable to effectively explain the topic.) |
| Depth of analysis |
New and or interesting ideas are discussed. More than just the simple comparisons are made. The analysis draws on multiple areas to reach its conclusion. |
The analysis does make the surface conclusions that are readily apparent, but lacks real insight beyond those. |
There is only a glancing blow at the surface of the material presented. |