Emerging Researchers National (ERN) Conference

nsf-logo[1]

  • About
    • About AAAS
    • About the NSF
    • About the Conference
    • Partners/Supporters
    • Project Team
  • Conference
  • Abstracts
    • Abstract Submission Process
    • Presentation Schedules
    • Abstract Submission Guidelines
    • Presentation Guidelines
    • Undergraduate Abstract Locator (2020)
    • Graduate Abstract Locator (2020)
    • Faculty Abstract Locator (2020)
  • Travel Awards
  • Resources
    • App
    • Award Winners
    • Code of Conduct-AAAS Meetings
    • Code of Conduct-ERN Conference
    • Conference Agenda
    • Conference Materials
    • Conference Program Books
    • ERN Photo Galleries
    • Events | Opportunities
    • Exhibitor Info
    • HBCU-UP/CREST PI/PD Meeting
    • In the News
    • NSF Harassment Policy
    • Plenary Session Videos
    • Professional Development
    • Science Careers Handbook
    • Additional Resources
    • Archives
  • Engage
    • Webinars
    • Video Contest
    • Video Contest Winners
    • ERN 10-Year Anniversary Videos
    • Plenary Session Videos
  • Contact Us

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

ERN Conference

The 2022 ERN Conference has been postponed.

Full Notice

What’s New

  • Congratulations to Zakiya Wilson-Kennedy on her 2021 AAAS Fellowship
  • Event Vaccination and Liability Policy
  • Webinars
  • Events|Opportunities
  • AAAS CEO Comments on Social Unrest, Racism, and Inequality
  • Maintaining Accessibility in Online Teaching During COVID-19
  • In the News
  • HBCU/CREST PI/PD Meeting

Conference Photos

ERN Conference Photo Galleries

Awards

ERN Conference Award Winners

Checking In

nsf-logo[1]

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. DUE-1930047. Any opinions, findings, interpretations, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of its authors and do not represent the views of the AAAS Board of Directors, the Council of AAAS, AAAS’ membership or the National Science Foundation.

AAAS

1200 New York Ave, NW Washington,DC 20005
202-326-6400
Contact Us
About Us

The World's Largest General Scientific Society

Useful Links

  • Membership
  • Careers at AAAS
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Focus Areas

  • Science Education
  • Science Diplomacy
  • Public Engagement
  • Careers in STEM

 

  • Shaping Science Policy
  • Advocacy for Evidence
  • R&D Budget Analysis
  • Human Rights, Ethics & Law
© 2022 American Association for the Advancement of Science