ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Speaker Application Evaluation Rubric
2
CRITERIAEXCELLENT 4 GOOD 3 FAIR 2POOR 1 POINTS
3
Content QualityTitleConcise, engaging, and accurately reflects content (15 words or less)Somewhat reflects content; may be too long or vague.Doesn't clearly reflect content or exceeds word limit.Completely irrelevant or exceeds word limit significantly.
4
Session DescriptionClear, compelling, and within 250-word limit.Adequate description; may lack clarity or exceed word limit slightly.Vague or significantly over/under word limit.Unclear or irrelevant description.
5
Learning Objectives3-4 clear, measurable objectives aligned with content.Objectives present but may lack clarity or measurability.Missing objectives or poorly formulated.No relevant objectives provided.
6
References5+ current, relevant primary sources within last 10 years.3+ current, relevant primary sources within last 10 years.1 current, relevant primary sources within last 10 years.No references provided.
7
Content OutlineDetailed, timed outline aligning with objectives.Outline present but may lack detail or clear alignment.Incomplete or poorly organized outline.No outline provided.
8
Relevance and InnovationTopic RelevanceHighly relevant, addresses current needs or emerging trends.Moderately relevant to the field.Limited relevance or outdated topic.Not relevant to current practice.
9
Innovation Presents new ideas or approaches.Some innovative elements.Lacks originality or new perspectives.No innovative aspects.
10
Speaker QualificationsExperience and CredentialsHighly qualified with relevant experience.Adequately qualified.Limited qualifications or experience.Unqualified or irrelevant experience.
11
Biographical InformationComprehensive and relevant bio provided.Basic bio provided. Incomplete or irrelevant bio.No bio provided.
12
Speaking Experience Extensive speaking experience.Some speaking experience.Limited speaking experience.No speaking experience.
13
Presentation DesignTeaching MethodsDiverse, engaging methods aligned with content such as practice, polls, etc.Standard teaching methods proposed.Limited or inappropriate teaching methods.No teaching methods proposed.
14
Content Level (fundamental, intermediate, advanced)Clearly defined and appropriate level.Level and Content is loosely alignedLevel and Content aligment is inconsistentLevel is not defined and clearly aligned with Content
15
Total Points
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100