Child pages
  • MSc Marking Guidelines for Oral Presentations
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Distinction

 

1)      Excellent structure and organization of presented materials, including quality of visual resources and oral delivery.

2)      Excellently articulated motivation for research question, including excellent grasp of background materials and rationale behind empirical work.

3)      Excellent articulation of experimental design, including a clear explanation of hypotheses and implications of variable outcomes.

4)      Excellent ability to respond to questions, including the ability to readily draw on empirical findings to support answers.

5)      Strong evidence of original critical reflection and an analytical approach.

Excellent Distinction

100

Presentation reaches an exceptional level of achievement that significantly exceeds the standards described by the statements above.

Good Distinction

90

Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements.

Solid Distinction

80

Presentation is well described by the above statements.

Low Distinction

75

Presentation mostly meets the standards described by the above statements

Merit

 

1)      Good structure and organization of presented materials, including quality of visual resources and oral delivery.

2)      Good articulation of research question, with a solid understanding of background materials and rationale for empirical work.

3)      Good explanation of experimental design.

4)      Good ability to respond to questions.

5)      Some evidence of original critical reflection and an analytical approach.

Good Merit

68

Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements, but does not meet standards for a distinction.

Solid Merit

65

Presentation is well described by the above statements.

Low Merit

62

Presentation mostly meets the standards described by the above statements

Pass

 

1)      Recognizable structure in presented materials, coupled with some obvious shortcomings (e.g., very inappropriate length, unreadable visual resources, etc.)

2)      Clear background materials and research question, but failure to clearly articulate the rationale for the proposed research.

3)      Comprehensible explanation of experimental design, with some shortcomings.

4)      Adequate ability to respond to questions.

5)      Evidence of original critical thinking.

Good Pass

58

Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements, but does not meet standards for a merit.

Solid Pass

55

Presentation is well described by the above statements.

Low Pass

52

Presentation mostly meets the standards described by the above statements

Marginal Fail

 

1)      Unclear, unstructured, messy materials.

2)      Sparse background information with little rationale for study and/or no clear research question.

3)      Deficient understanding of own hypotheses or role of data in supporting arguments.

4)      Inadequate responses to questions.

 

48

Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements, but does not meet standards for a pass.

 

45

Presentation is well described by the above statements.

 

42

Presentation falls below the standards described by the above statements

Clear Fail

 

1)      Presentation is devoid of structure and does not make use of appropriate visual/auditory resources.

2)      No clear background information or rationale for study.

3)      Little or no understanding of hypotheses or role of data in supporting arguments.

4)      Inability to respond to questions.

 

38

Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements, but does not meet the standards for a marginal fail.

 

32

Presentation is well described by the above statements.

 

10

Presentation falls below the standards described by the above statements.

Zero Marks

0

No presentation given.

  • No labels