Scoring Level

Interpretation

Accomplished

Analyzes insightful questions

Refutes bias

Critiques content

Examines inconsistencies

Values information

Competent

Asks insightful questions

Detects bias

Categorizes content

Identifies inconsistencies

Recognizes context

Developing

Identifies some questions

Notes some bias

Recognizes basic content

States some inconsistencies

Selects sources adequately

Beginner

Fails to question data

Ignores bias

Misses major content areas

Detects no inconsistencies

Chooses biased sources

Components

8-Sophisticated

6-Competent

2-Not yet Competent

Presentation Depth of Content

Speaker acts as an expert on the article provides accurate and complete explanations of key concepts and theories, drawing on outside sources if appropriate. Listeners gain insights.

For the most part, speaker provides explanations of concepts that are accurate and complete. Some helpful applications/insights are included.

Explanations of concepts and/or theories are inaccurate or incomplete. Listeners gain little from the presentation.

Accuracy of Content

Information (names, facts, etc) included in the presentation is consistently accurate.

No significant errors are made. Listeners recognize any errors to be the result of nervousness or oversight.

Enough errors are made to distract a knowledgeable listener. Some information is accurate but the listener must determine what information is reliable.

Paper Criticism

Provides insightful and correct commentary on the quality of the work, including highlighting valuable ideas and problematic aspects of the work. Discusses consequences for future work in the area. Goes beyond content provided in the paper.

Provides some insightful commentary, but not to the degree of “sophisticated.” The criticisms may be largely found in the paper, or may be general to much of the literature in the area.

Criticism is shallow, trivial, invalid, and/or missing.

Discussion Lead

Has prepared deep questions to spark discussion or debate about the work. Leads and sustains a lively discussion that encourgages and builds on the contributions of fellow classmates.

Presenters clearly prepared with a mix of typical and insightful questions. Conversation may be lively or drag depending on the mood of the class.

Discussion reflects poor or shallow preparation; presenters are unable to respond to questions or comments thoughtfully.

Components

4-Sophisticated

3-Competent

1-Not yet Competent

Time Management

Completes presentation smoothly in time alloted, even in the face of significant distractions or othe extenuating circumstances.

Presentation is completed on time but may be slightly rushed at the end. Presentation may run slightly over time.

Presentation skips important topics due to time and/or presentation exceeds limit by several minutes.

Responsiveness to Audience Verbal Interaction

Body Language

Consistently clarifies, restates, and responds to questions. Summarizes when needed.

Body language reflects comfort interacting with audience

Generally responsive to audience questions and needs. Misses some opportunities for interaction.

Body language reflects some discomfort interacting with audience.

Responds to questions inadequately.

Body language reveals a reluctance to interact with audience.

Organization

Style

Presentation is clear, logical, and organized. Listener can follow line of reasoning.

Level of presentation is appropriate for the audience. Presentation is a planned conversation, paced for audience understanding. It is not a reading of a paper. Speaker is comfortable in front of the group and can be heard by all.

Presentation is generally clear and well organized. A few minor points may be confusing.

Level of presentation is generally appropriate. Pacing is sometimes too fast or too slow. Presenter seems slightly uncomfortable at times, and audience occasionally has trouble hearing him/her.

Organization is haphazard; listener can follow presentation only with effort. Arguments are not clear.

Aspects of presentation are too elementary or too sophisticated for audience. Presenter seems uncomfortable and can be heard only if listener is very attentive. Much of the information is read.

Presentation Aids

Communication aids enhance presentation.

• The font on the visuals is readable.

• Information is represented and organized to maximize audience comprehension.

• Details are minimized so that main points stand out.

Communication aids contribute to the quality of the presentation.

• Font size is mostly readable.

• Appropriate information is included.

• Some material is not supported by visual aids.

Communication aids are poorly prepared or used inappropriately.

• Font size is too small to read.

• Too much information is included.

• Details or some unimportant information is highlighted, and may confuse the audience.

Criteria

Expert

Proficient

Apprentice

Novice

Introduction[Introductory paragraph(s), literature review, hypotheses or propositions]

 Clearly identifies and discusses research focus/purpose of research

Research focus is clearly grounded in previous research/ theoretically relevant literature

Significance of the research is clearly identified (how it adds to previous research)

Hypotheses/ propositions are clearly articulated

 Limited discussion of research focus/purpose of research

Research focus is less well-grounded in previous research/ theoretically relevant literature

Significance of the research is not as clearly identified (how it adds to previous research)

Hypotheses/ propositions are described but not as well articulated

 Minimal discussion of research focus/purpose of research

Research focus is not well-grounded in previous research/ theoretically relevant literature

Significance of the research is not clearly identified (how it adds to previous research)

Hypotheses/ propositions are not well articulated

 Little or no discussion of research focus/purpose of research

Research focus not grounded in previous research/ theoretically relevant literature

Significance of the research is not identified (how it adds to previous research)

Hypotheses/ propositions are poorly articulated or are absent altogether

Research Methods

Asks questions that focus on potential information gaps or on innovative reexamination of existing problems or issues that are open and unresolved

Algorithmic or analytical contributions are novel and foundational

 Provides accurate, thorough description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context

Asks questions that focus on potential information gaps or on innovative reexamination of existing problems or issues that are open and unresolved

Algorithmic or analytical contributions are novel

 Description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context is adequate but limited.

Asks questions that explore known or common problems or issues that are open or unresolved

Algorithmic or analytical contributions are somewhat novel

 Description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context is somewhat confusing/not clearly articulated.

Asks questions that are simple or obvious, depending upon basic reporting of factual knowledge; or states position without asking question

No algorithmic or analytical contributions

Description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context is very confusing/not articulated sufficiently.

Results

 Results are clearly explained in a comprehensive level of detail and are well-organized

 Tables/figures clearly and concisely convey the data.

Statistical analyses (if used) are appropriate tests and are accurately interpreted.

Results are explained but not as clearly, level of detail is not as sufficient, and there are some organizational issues

Tables/figures are not as clear/concise in conveying the data.

Statistical analyses (if used) are appropriate tests but are not accurately interpreted.

 Results are not very clearly explained, level of detail is insufficient, and there are more organizational issues

 Tables/figures are not clear/concise in conveying the data.

Statistical analyses (if used) are inappropriate tests and/or are not accurately interpreted.

  Results are not clearly explained, level of detail is severely insufficient, and there are serious organizational issues

Tables/figures are not clear/concise in conveying the data.

Statistical analyses (if used) are inappropriate tests and/or are not accurately interpreted.

Conclusions

Interpretations/ analysis of results are thoughtful and insightful, are clearly informed by the study’s results, and thoroughly address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/ propositions

Insightful discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area

Suggestions for further research in this area are insightful and thoughtful

 Interpretations/ analysis of results are sufficient but somewhat lacking in thoughtfulness and insight, are not as clearly informed by the study’s results, and do not as thoroughly address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/ proposition

Discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area is adequate.

Suggestions for further research in this area are adequate.

 Interpretations/ analysis of results lacking in thoughtfulness and insight, are not clearly informed by the study’s results, and do not adequately address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/ propositions

Discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area is limited.

Suggestions for further research in this area are very limited.

Interpretations/ analysis of results severely lacking in thoughtful ness and insight, are not informed by the study’s results, and do not address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/ propositions

Discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area is severely limited and/or absent altogether.

Suggestions for further research in this area are severely limited and/or absent altogether.

Documentation of Sources, Quality of Sources

 Cites all data obtained from other sources.

 Sources are all scholarly and clearly relate to the research focus.

 Cites most data obtained from other sources.

Sources are primarily scholarly and relate to the research focus.

 Cites some data obtained from other sources.

 Sources are not primarily scholarly and relate to the research focus but somewhat tangentially.

 Does not cite sources.

Sources are disproportionately non-scholarly and do not clearly relate to the research focus.

Spelling & Grammar

No spelling & grammar mistakes

Minimal spelling & grammar mistakes

Noticeable spelling and grammar mistakes

Excessive spelling and/or grammar mistakes