![nsf-logo[1]](https://emerging-researchers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/nsf-logo1.png){kind=logo}
HYPOTHESIS AND/OR STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
5 – Outstanding
- A logical hypothesis and/or statement of problem was presented clearly.
- Background information was relevant and summarized well. Connections to previous literature and broader issues were clear.
- Goal of project was stated clearly and concisely; showed clear relevance beyond project.
4 – Excellent
- A logical hypothesis and/or statement of problem was presented.
- Background information was relevant, but connections were not clear.
- Goal of project was stated clearly; showed relevance beyond project.
3 – Good
- A questionable hypothesis and/or statement of problem was presented.
- Back ground information was relevant, but connections were not made.
- Goalofprojectwasstated understandably.
2 – Average
- A questionable hypothesis and/or statement of problem was presented and was not necessarily supported.
- Some relevant background information was included, but not connected.
- Goal of project was not clear.
1 – Below Average
- The hypothesis and/or statement of problem was inappropriate or was missing.
- Little or no background information was included or connected.
- Goal of project was not stated.
METHODS AND CONTROLS/COMPARISON
5 – Outstanding
- Thorough explanation of why particular methods were chosen.
- Clear discussion of controls or comparative groups; all appropriate controls or comparative groups were included.
4 – Excellent
- Good explanation of choice of methods
- Clear discussion of controls or comparative groups; most controls or comparative groups were included.
3 – Good
- Little comment on why the methods were chosen and others not chosen.
- Adequate discussion of controls or comparative groups; some significant controls or comparative groups were lacking.
2 – Average
- No discussion of choice of methods.
- Controls or comparative groups not adequately described; some appropriate controls or groups were missing.
1 – Below Average
- Methods section missing.
- Serious lack of controls or discussion of controls.
RESULTS
5 – Outstanding
- Substantial amounts of high quality data were presented sufficient to address the hypothesis.
- Presentation of data was clear, thorough, and logical.
4 – Excellent
- Sufficient amounts of good data were presented to address the hypothesis.
- Presentation of data was clear and logical.
3 – Good
- Adequate amounts of reasonably good data were presented to address the hypothesis.
- Presentation of data was not entirely clear.
2 – Average
- Some data were lacking not fully sufficient to address the hypothesis.
- Presentation of data was included, but unclear or difficult to comprehend.
1 – Below Average
- Results are not yet available or reproducible.
- Presentation of data was missing.
CONCLUSION EXPECTED OUTCOME(S) FUTURE WORK
5 – Outstanding
- Reasonable conclusions were given and strongly supported with evidence.
- Conclusions were compared to hypothesis and/or statement of problem, and their relevance in a wider context was discussed
4 – Excellent
- Reasonable conclusions were given and supported with evidence.
- Conclusions were compared to hypothesis and/or statement of problem, but their relevance was not discussed.
3 – Good
- Reasonable conclusions were given.
- Conclusions were not compared to the hypothesis and/or statement of problem, and their relevance was not discussed.
2 – Average
- Conclusions were given.
- Little connection with the hypothesis and/or statement of problem was apparent.
1 – Below Average
- Conclusions were missing.
- There was no connection with the hypothesis and/or statement of problem.
OVERALL PRESENTATION & HANDLING QUESTIONS
5 – Outstanding
Student:
- Demonstrates a very strong knowledge of the research
project - Speaks clearly, naturally and with enthusiasm; makes eye
contact - Comfortably uses visual aids to enhance presentation
- Answers difficult questions clearly and succinctly
- Presentation is consistently clear and logical
4 – Excellent
Student:
- Demonstrates a good knowledge of the research project
- Speaks clearly and naturally; makes eye contact
- Uses visual aids to enhance the presentation
- Answers most questions
- Presentation is clear for the most part, but not consistently
3 – Good
Student:
- Demonstrates some knowledge of the research project
- Reads from the poster (slide or script) some of the time
- Uses some visual aids to enhance the presentation
- Has some difficulty answering challenging questions
- Presentation is generally unclear and inconsistent
2 – Average
Student:
- Demonstrates a poor knowledge of the research project
- Reads from the poster (slide or script) most of the time
- Does not use the available visual aid to enhance presentation effectively
- Has difficulty answering questions
- Presentation is unclear
1 – Below Average
Student:
- Does not demonstrate any knowledge of the research
project - Reads from the poster (slide or script) all the time
- Does not use the available visual aid to enhance presentation
- Does not understand questions
- Presentation is very confusing
POSTER BOARD PRESENTATION
5 – Outstanding
- All expected components are present, clearly laid out, and easy to follow in the absence of presenter
- The text is concise, legible, and consistently free of spelling or typographical errors; the background is unobtrusive
- The figures and tables are appropriate and consistently labeled correctly
- Photographs/tables/graphs improve understanding and enhance the visual appeal
4 – Excellent
- All expected components are present, but layout is crowded or jumbled and somewhat confusing to follow in the absence of presenter
- The text is relatively clear, legible, and mostly free of spelling or typographical errors; the background is unobtrusive
- Most of the figures and tables are appropriate and labeled correctly
- Photographs / tables/graphs improve understanding
3 – Good
- Most of the expected components are present, but layout is confusing to follow in the absence of presenter
- The text is relatively clear and legible, but inconsistently free of spelling or typographical errors; the background may be distracting
- The figures and tables are not always related to the text, or appropriate, or are labeled incorrectly
- Photographs / table/graphs do not improve understanding
2 – Average
- Some of the expected components are present, but layout is untidy and confusing to follow in the absence of the presenter.
- The text is hard to read due to font size or color and inconsistently free of spelling or typographical errors; the background may be distracting.
- The figures and tables are not related to the text, or are not appropriate, or are poorly labeled.
- Photographs / tables/graphs are limited and do not improve understanding of the project.
1 – Below Average
- Some of the expected components are present, but poorly laid out and confusing to follow in the absence of the presenter.
- The text is hard to read, messy and illegible, and contains multiple spelling or typographical errors very poor background
- The figures and tables are poorly done
- Visual aids are not used
![nsf-logo[1]](/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/nsf-logo1.png){kind=logo}