Biocore Oral Presentation Rubric
| 4=excellent |
With a few minor exceptions, the team clearly, concisely, & thoroughly conveyed their research project such that the audience could grasp & evaluate the work. The presentation contained all of these key components: 1. a clear, logical biological rationale summarizing research goals, key concepts, unfamiliar terminology, & knowledge gaps to be addressed, referencing appropriate literature; 2. concise, complete hypothesis statement; 3. clear explanation of methods, particularly those unfamiliar to audience; 4. comprehensible graph(s) of results (or expected results); 5. clear & logical conclusions based on data (or expected data) & implications; 6. summary of assumptions that were supported or incorrect and any relevant problems/errors. 7. Audience questions after the presentation were answered logically and fully. |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3=very good |
Team clearly, concisely, & thoroughly conveyed all but 1 key component OR clearly covers all key components but could be more concise and/or clear. e.g., clearly & thoroughly conveyed all key components but could have been more concise. |
| 2=good |
Team clearly, concisely, & thoroughly conveyed all but two key components OR clearly covers all but one key component but could have been presented more clearly, concisely and/or thoroughly. |
| 1=adequate |
Team clearly, concisely, & thoroughly conveyed all but 3 key components and could be more concise and/or clear OR clearly covers all but 2 key components but those presented could have been done much more clearly, concisely, and/or thoroughly. |
| 0=inadequate |
Team’s presentation was missing 4-5 key components; those stated were unclear and/or were not stated concisely. |
| 4=excellent |
With a few minor exceptions, the presentation content was logically organized in a way that facilitated the audience’s comprehension. |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3=very good |
The presentation content was logically organized so that only a few minor clarifications were necessary after the presentation. |
| 2=good |
Most of the presentation content was logically organized, but some key clarifications were necessary after the presentation. |
| 1=adequate |
Only some of the presentation content was logically organized, and so many key clarifications were necessary after the presentation. |
| 0=inadequate |
The presentation content was not logically organized and so did not facilitate the audience’s comprehension. |
| 4=excellent |
Effective teamwork contributed to the success of the presentation because it met these criteria: 1. each team member’s contribution to the presentation was equivalent; 2. each team member contributed answers to questions asked after the presentation, to the best of their ability; 3. teammates were respectful of each speaker and did not interrupt them. |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3=very good |
Teamwork was largely effective; 2 of the 3 criteria were fully met. |
| 2=good |
Teamwork was somewhat effective; 1 of the 3 criteria was fully met. |
| 1=adequate |
Teamwork was not effective because none of the three criteria was fully met. |
| 0=inadequate |
No teamwork was evident. |
| 4=excellent |
With a few minor exceptions, the visuals accompanying the oral narrative very effectively conveyed the research project because they satisfied these criteria: 1. content was relevant; 2. overall appearance was pleasing to the eye but did not distract from the research; 3. font size, graphs, & figures were large enough to be viewed easily; 4. font, graph, & figure *colors contrasted well against background & so were easy to see; 5. content (text, graphics) filled with just enough information to be informative without looking overcrowded; 6. graphs and figures were clearly labeled, had titles (no legends necessary), and effectively displayed relevant data/trends; 7. organization & formatting emphasized pertinent points. *colors optional |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3=very good |
The visuals used satisfied all but one of the key criteria. |
| 2=good |
The visuals used satisfied all but 2-3 of the key criteria. |
| 1=adequate |
The visuals used satisfied all but 4-5 of the key criteria. |
| 0=inadequate |
The visuals used satisfied only 1-2 of the key criteria. |
| 4=excellent |
With a few minor exceptions, the presentation mechanics allowed the research project to be very effectively conveyed because they satisfied these criteria: 1. the rate, flow, and clarity of delivery by each speaker was appropriate; 2. all speakers were introduced; 3. each speaker’s voice was loud enough to be heard in the back of the room; 4. each speaker spoke to the audience in a narrative style, avoiding distracting mannerisms; 5. transitions between speakers were smooth and helped audience follow the presentation; 6. graph & figure axes labeling were explained clearly before trends/results were emphasized; 7. content was presented long enough to allow audience to follow easily; 8. presentation ended with final conclusion statement(s); 9. presentation took 15 +/- 1 min. (varies w/ assignment). |
Show additional rubric tiers
| 3=very good |
The presentation mechanics satisfied all but one to two of the key criteria. |
| 2=good |
The presentation mechanics satisfied all but 3-4 of the key criteria. |
| 1=adequate |
The presentation mechanics satisfied all but 5-6 of the key criteria. |
| 0=inadequate |
The presentation mechanics satisfied only 1-2 of the key criteria. |
| Letter Grade |
Minimum Criteria |
| A |
Team earned a “4” in Content and Organization, earned a “3” or better in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics. |
| AB |
Team did not meet minimum criteria for an “A”, but earned a “3” or better in Content and Organization. Earned a “2” or better in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics. |
| B |
Team did not meet minimum criteria for an “AB”, but earned a “2” or better in Content and Organization. Earned a “2” or better in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics. |
| BC |
Team did not meet minimum criteria for a “B”, but earned a “2” in Content and a “1” in Organization OR vice versa. Earned a “1” or better in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics. |
| C |
Team did not meet minimum criteria for a “BC”, but earned a “1” or better in Content and Organization. Received no more than one zero in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics. |
| D |
Team did not meet minimum criteria for a “C”, but earned a “1” or better in either Content or Organization. Received no more than two zeros in Teamwork, Visuals, and Presentation Mechanics. |
| F |
Team did not meet minimum criteria for a “D.” |
Download Biocore rubrics in PDF format
