Pass Sufficient work to reach minimum acceptable (40) standard Has not addressed the Shows little understanding of The presenter Extremely poor use absence of devices Total absence of subject matter of the basic concepts, and attempts to shows minimal of voice. which might have been supporting materials Fail presentation in any describe them are unclear or evidence of included to engage the and media e.g. Video i.e. Clarity and pace substantial way. Strays off erroneous. background audience. extract, tape recording, are totally the subject very frequently. reading. Points OHP, powerpoint, (39 inappropriate. The presentation consists – made in the slides etc. The presentation contains entirely of reading from a 20) presentation are much irrelevance. script with no reference to unsupported, and audience either directly or appear to be based in the content entirely on personal experience and opinion. May be major errors of fact. Bad Fail No attempt to present Little or no understanding of No evidence of No attempt to Little or no evidence of No attempt to use material related to the basic concepts. Contains many background deliver an oral audience engagement. supporting material. (0 19) – subject. factual errors. reading. Material is presentation of the incorrect. required standard. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF POSTER PRESENTATIONS MARK COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT VOICE PRESENTATION RELEVANCE DELIVERY (If appropriate) Clear evidence of extensive 80 - 100 Excellent on topic. Excellent understanding and Excellent and Excellent visual impact. High extra reading. Excellent Excellent understanding of explanation of concepts. Critical confident use of quality conference poster. examples explained with full concepts. Excellent breadth analysis of information in scientific language.
Pass (40) Sufficient work to reach minimum acceptable standard Fail (39 – 20) Has not addressed the subject matter of the presentation in any substantial way. Strays off the subject very frequently. The presentation contains much irrelevance. Shows little understanding of basic concepts, and attempts to describe them are unclear or erroneous. The presenter shows minimal evidence of background reading. Points made in the presentation are unsupported, and appear to be based entirely on personal experience and opinion. May be major errors of fact. Extremely poor use of voice. i.e. Clarity and pace are totally inappropriate. absence of devices which might have been included to engage the audience. The presentation consists entirely of reading from a script with no reference to audience either directly or in the content Total absence of supporting materials and media e.g. Video extract, tape recording, OHP, powerpoint, slides etc. Bad Fail (0 – 19) No attempt to present material related to the subject. Little or no understanding of basic concepts. Contains many factual errors. No evidence of background reading. Material is incorrect. No attempt to deliver an oral presentation of the required standard. Little or no evidence of audience engagement. No attempt to use supporting material. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF POSTER PRESENTATIONS MARK COVERAGE AND RELEVANCE ANALYSIS SUPPORT VOICE DELIVERY (If appropriate) PRESENTATION 80 - 100 Excellent on topic. Excellent understanding of concepts. Excellent breadth Excellent understanding and explanation of concepts. Critical analysis of information in Clear evidence of extensive extra reading. Excellent examples explained with full scientific language. Excellent and confident use of Excellent visual impact. High quality conference poster.
Copa-FSN2014-15.docx