ERN Judges Criteria Evaluation Interpretation Rubric GUIDE Oral & Poster Presentations

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