Child pages
  • UG Marking Guidelines - Mini Projects Academic Oral Presentations (Y1)
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Current »

Slides


1st

Excellent visual resources: informative, highly structured organization of presented materials

2:1

Good visual resources: informative, well organized materials, but with some minor issues (e.g. too much text on slides)

2:2

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

3rd

Unclear, unstructured, messy materials

Fail

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

 

Group verbal presentation


1st

Clear, articulate, well organised explanation of the slides that enhanced and extended the audience’s understanding of the material presented. Questions answered thoughtfully and clearly. All group members contributed and the presentation was appropriate in length.

2:1

Clear and quite well organised explanation of the slides that helped the audience to understand it. Questions answered thoughtfully and clearly. All group members contributed. The presentation may have been slightly too long or short.

2:2

Explanation of the slides lacked clarity and organisation in parts. The audience’s understanding may have been helped by the explanations in parts, but the explanations may also have created confusion. Questions may not have been properly understood or answered appropriately. Most group members contributed. Length of the presentation may have been inappropriate.

3rd

Limited, disorganised explanation of the slides that mainly lead to confusion in the audience. Most group members did not contribute and length of presentation may have been inappropriate. Questions answered poorly or not attempted.

Fail

No comprehensible explanation of the slides offered and no questions answered.

 

Project design / analysis


1st

The study was designed thoughtfully to allow the group to investigate the research question rigorously and all obvious confounds had been removed (e.g. order effects). The correct descriptive statistics and statistical tests are reported clearly and figures are appropriate to the type of data collected. Figures are well labelled and conform to basic APA format.

2:1

The study design answers the research question well and most obvious confounds had been removed. The correct descriptive statistics and statistical tests are conducted but there may be a few mistakes in how these are reported. The figures are appropriate to the type of data collected, but there may be a few errors in the formatting of the figures

2:2

The study design allows some aspect of the research question to be answered, although there may be some obvious confounds that were not controlled. There may be some errors in the descriptive statistics reported. The correct statistical tests were conducted but there may be some mistakes in the how these are reported. The figures may not be appropriate to the type of data collected and there may be a many errors in the formatting of the figures

3rd

The study design is does not really allow the research question to be addressed. Inappropriate descriptive statistics and/or statistical tests may be reported and these may also be reported incorrectly. Figures may be inappropriate to type of data and there may be a many errors in the formatting of the figures.

Fail

The study design is does not allow the research question to be addressed. No statistical tests reported. Figures inappropriate to type of data and no adherence to APA formatting



Understanding of project (from slides, verbal explanations and answers to questions)

 

1st

Excellent understanding of the topic area. Well researched and excellent grasp of relevant previous research. Excellent understanding of what the results mean and how they relate back to the research question. Insightful suggestions for improvements and future research.

2:1

Solid understanding of the topic area. Good understanding of some key previous research. Good understanding of what the results mean. Some good suggestions for improvements and future research.

2:2

Good understanding of the core topic area. Limited research: some understanding of key previous research but some omissions. There may be some confusion as to what the results mean. Suggestions for improvements and future research may be limited in scope.

3rd

Poor understanding of the topic area. No knowledge of key previous research. Lack of understanding over what the results mean. Suggestions for improvements and future research may be missing

Fail

No evidence of understanding the topic area or any relevant previous research. No understanding of what the results mean and no suggestions for improvements and future research.


The overall mark will reflect your group’s performance in all four sections and will therefore be a mean of your grades in the four sections.


Notes to faculty:

1. The allocation of the 3 possible marks within a grade boundary (e.g. 62,65,68 in 2:1) should reflect how well the group performed within each degree class boundary (e.g. a group with mainly 2:1 attributes but the odd 1st attribute should get a 68; a group with mainly 2:1 attributes but the odd 2:2 attribute should get a 62).

  • No labels