presentation evaluation rubric

Rubrics for Oral Presentations

Introduction.

Many instructors require students to give oral presentations, which they evaluate and count in students’ grades. It is important that instructors clarify their goals for these presentations as well as the student learning objectives to which they are related. Embedding the assignment in course goals and learning objectives allows instructors to be clear with students about their expectations and to develop a rubric for evaluating the presentations.

A rubric is a scoring guide that articulates and assesses specific components and expectations for an assignment. Rubrics identify the various criteria relevant to an assignment and then explicitly state the possible levels of achievement along a continuum, so that an effective rubric accurately reflects the expectations of an assignment. Using a rubric to evaluate student performance has advantages for both instructors and students.  Creating Rubrics

Rubrics can be either analytic or holistic. An analytic rubric comprises a set of specific criteria, with each one evaluated separately and receiving a separate score. The template resembles a grid with the criteria listed in the left column and levels of performance listed across the top row, using numbers and/or descriptors. The cells within the center of the rubric contain descriptions of what expected performance looks like for each level of performance.

A holistic rubric consists of a set of descriptors that generate a single, global score for the entire work. The single score is based on raters’ overall perception of the quality of the performance. Often, sentence- or paragraph-length descriptions of different levels of competencies are provided.

When applied to an oral presentation, rubrics should reflect the elements of the presentation that will be evaluated as well as their relative importance. Thus, the instructor must decide whether to include dimensions relevant to both form and content and, if so, which one. Additionally, the instructor must decide how to weight each of the dimensions – are they all equally important, or are some more important than others? Additionally, if the presentation represents a group project, the instructor must decide how to balance grading individual and group contributions.  Evaluating Group Projects

Creating Rubrics

The steps for creating an analytic rubric include the following:

1. Clarify the purpose of the assignment. What learning objectives are associated with the assignment?

2. Look for existing rubrics that can be adopted or adapted for the specific assignment

3. Define the criteria to be evaluated

4. Choose the rating scale to measure levels of performance

5. Write descriptions for each criterion for each performance level of the rating scale

6. Test and revise the rubric

Examples of criteria that have been included in rubrics for evaluation oral presentations include:

• Knowledge of content
• Organization of content
• Presentation of ideas
• Research/sources
• Visual aids/handouts
• Language clarity
• Grammatical correctness
• Time management
• Volume of speech
• Rate/pacing of Speech
• Mannerisms/gestures
• ​​​​​​​Eye contact/audience engagement

Examples of scales/ratings that have been used to rate student performance include:

• Strong, Satisfactory, Weak
• Beginning, Intermediate, High
• Exemplary, Competent, Developing
• Excellent, Competent, Needs Work
• Exceeds Standard, Meets Standard, Approaching Standard, Below Standard
• Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, Novice
• Excellent, Good, Marginal, Unacceptable
• Advanced, Intermediate High, Intermediate, Developing
• Exceptional, Above Average, Sufficient, Minimal, Poor
• Master, Distinguished, Proficient, Intermediate, Novice
• Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Poor, Unacceptable
• Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never
• Exemplary, Accomplished, Acceptable, Minimally Acceptable, Emerging, Unacceptable

Grading and Performance Rubrics Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation

Creating and Using Rubrics Carnegie Mellon University Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation

Using Rubrics Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation

Rubrics DePaul University Teaching Commons

Building a Rubric University of Texas/Austin Faculty Innovation Center

Building a Rubric Columbia University Center for Teaching and Learning

Rubric Development University of West Florida Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

Creating and Using Rubrics Yale University Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning

Designing Grading Rubrics ​​​​​​​ Brown University Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning

Examples of Oral Presentation Rubrics

Oral Presentation Rubric Pomona College Teaching and Learning Center

Oral Presentation Evaluation Rubric University of Michigan

Oral Presentation Rubric Roanoke College

Oral Presentation: Scoring Guide Fresno State University Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Presentation Skills Rubric State University of New York/New Paltz School of Business

Oral Presentation Rubric Oregon State University Center for Teaching and Learning

Oral Presentation Rubric Purdue University College of Science

Group Class Presentation Sample Rubric Pepperdine University Graziadio Business School

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Pharm Educ
• v.74(9); 2010 Nov 10

A Standardized Rubric to Evaluate Student Presentations

Michael j. peeters.

a University of Toledo College of Pharmacy

Eric G. Sahloff

Gregory e. stone.

b University of Toledo College of Education

To design, implement, and assess a rubric to evaluate student presentations in a capstone doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) course.

A 20-item rubric was designed and used to evaluate student presentations in a capstone fourth-year course in 2007-2008, and then revised and expanded to 25 items and used to evaluate student presentations for the same course in 2008-2009. Two faculty members evaluated each presentation.

The Many-Facets Rasch Model (MFRM) was used to determine the rubric's reliability, quantify the contribution of evaluator harshness/leniency in scoring, and assess grading validity by comparing the current grading method with a criterion-referenced grading scheme. In 2007-2008, rubric reliability was 0.98, with a separation of 7.1 and 4 rating scale categories. In 2008-2009, MFRM analysis suggested 2 of 98 grades be adjusted to eliminate evaluator leniency, while a further criterion-referenced MFRM analysis suggested 10 of 98 grades should be adjusted.

The evaluation rubric was reliable and evaluator leniency appeared minimal. However, a criterion-referenced re-analysis suggested a need for further revisions to the rubric and evaluation process.

INTRODUCTION

Evaluations are important in the process of teaching and learning. In health professions education, performance-based evaluations are identified as having “an emphasis on testing complex, ‘higher-order’ knowledge and skills in the real-world context in which they are actually used.” 1 Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are a common, notable example. 2 On Miller's pyramid, a framework used in medical education for measuring learner outcomes, “knows” is placed at the base of the pyramid, followed by “knows how,” then “shows how,” and finally, “does” is placed at the top. 3 Based on Miller's pyramid, evaluation formats that use multiple-choice testing focus on “knows” while an OSCE focuses on “shows how.” Just as performance evaluations remain highly valued in medical education, 4 authentic task evaluations in pharmacy education may be better indicators of future pharmacist performance. 5 Much attention in medical education has been focused on reducing the unreliability of high-stakes evaluations. 6 Regardless of educational discipline, high-stakes performance-based evaluations should meet educational standards for reliability and validity. 7

PharmD students at University of Toledo College of Pharmacy (UTCP) were required to complete a course on presentations during their final year of pharmacy school and then give a presentation that served as both a capstone experience and a performance-based evaluation for the course. Pharmacists attending the presentations were given Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)-approved continuing education credits. An evaluation rubric for grading the presentations was designed to allow multiple faculty evaluators to objectively score student performances in the domains of presentation delivery and content. Given the pass/fail grading procedure used in advanced pharmacy practice experiences, passing this presentation-based course and subsequently graduating from pharmacy school were contingent upon this high-stakes evaluation. As a result, the reliability and validity of the rubric used and the evaluation process needed to be closely scrutinized.

Each year, about 100 students completed presentations and at least 40 faculty members served as evaluators. With the use of multiple evaluators, a question of evaluator leniency often arose (ie, whether evaluators used the same criteria for evaluating performances or whether some evaluators graded easier or more harshly than others). At UTCP, opinions among some faculty evaluators and many PharmD students implied that evaluator leniency in judging the students' presentations significantly affected specific students' grades and ultimately their graduation from pharmacy school. While it was plausible that evaluator leniency was occurring, the magnitude of the effect was unknown. Thus, this study was initiated partly to address this concern over grading consistency and scoring variability among evaluators.

Because both students' presentation style and content were deemed important, each item of the rubric was weighted the same across delivery and content. However, because there were more categories related to delivery than content, an additional faculty concern was that students feasibly could present poor content but have an effective presentation delivery and pass the course.

The objectives for this investigation were: (1) to describe and optimize the reliability of the evaluation rubric used in this high-stakes evaluation; (2) to identify the contribution and significance of evaluator leniency to evaluation reliability; and (3) to assess the validity of this evaluation rubric within a criterion-referenced grading paradigm focused on both presentation delivery and content.

The University of Toledo's Institutional Review Board approved this investigation. This study investigated performance evaluation data for an oral presentation course for final-year PharmD students from 2 consecutive academic years (2007-2008 and 2008-2009). The course was taken during the fourth year (P4) of the PharmD program and was a high-stakes, performance-based evaluation. The goal of the course was to serve as a capstone experience, enabling students to demonstrate advanced drug literature evaluation and verbal presentations skills through the development and delivery of a 1-hour presentation. These presentations were to be on a current pharmacy practice topic and of sufficient quality for ACPE-approved continuing education. This experience allowed students to demonstrate their competencies in literature searching, literature evaluation, and application of evidence-based medicine, as well as their oral presentation skills. Students worked closely with a faculty advisor to develop their presentation. Each class (2007-2008 and 2008-2009) was randomly divided, with half of the students taking the course and completing their presentation and evaluation in the fall semester and the other half in the spring semester. To accommodate such a large number of students presenting for 1 hour each, it was necessary to use multiple rooms with presentations taking place concurrently over 2.5 days for both the fall and spring sessions of the course. Two faculty members independently evaluated each student presentation using the provided evaluation rubric. The 2007-2008 presentations involved 104 PharmD students and 40 faculty evaluators, while the 2008-2009 presentations involved 98 students and 46 faculty evaluators.

After vetting through the pharmacy practice faculty, the initial rubric used in 2007-2008 focused on describing explicit, specific evaluation criteria such as amounts of eye contact, voice pitch/volume, and descriptions of study methods. The evaluation rubric used in 2008-2009 was similar to the initial rubric, but with 5 items added (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). The evaluators rated each item (eg, eye contact) based on their perception of the student's performance. The 25 rubric items had equal weight (ie, 4 points each), but each item received a rating from the evaluator of 1 to 4 points. Thus, only 4 rating categories were included as has been recommended in the literature. 8 However, some evaluators created an additional 3 rating categories by marking lines in between the 4 ratings to signify half points ie, 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5. For example, for the “notecards/notes” item in Figure ​ Figure1, 1 , a student looked at her notes sporadically during her presentation, but not distractingly nor enough to warrant a score of 3 in the faculty evaluator's opinion, so a 3.5 was given. Thus, a 7-category rating scale (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5. 3, 3.5, and 4) was analyzed. Each independent evaluator's ratings for the 25 items were summed to form a score (0-100%). The 2 evaluators' scores then were averaged and a letter grade was assigned based on the following scale: >90% = A, 80%-89% = B, 70%-79% = C, <70% = F.

Rubric used to evaluate student presentations given in a 2008-2009 capstone PharmD course.

EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

Rubric reliability.

To measure rubric reliability, iterative analyses were performed on the evaluations using the Many-Facets Rasch Model (MFRM) following the 2007-2008 data collection period. While Cronbach's alpha is the most commonly reported coefficient of reliability, its single number reporting without supplementary information can provide incomplete information about reliability. 9 - 11 Due to its formula, Cronbach's alpha can be increased by simply adding more repetitive rubric items or having more rating scale categories, even when no further useful information has been added. The MFRM reports separation , which is calculated differently than Cronbach's alpha, is another source of reliability information. Unlike Cronbach's alpha, separation does not appear enhanced by adding further redundant items. From a measurement perspective, a higher separation value is better than a lower one because students are being divided into meaningful groups after measurement error has been accounted for. Separation can be thought of as the number of units on a ruler where the more units the ruler has, the larger the range of performance levels that can be measured among students. For example, a separation of 4.0 suggests 4 graduations such that a grade of A is distinctly different from a grade of B, which in turn is different from a grade of C or of F. In measuring performances, a separation of 9.0 is better than 5.5, just as a separation of 7.0 is better than a 6.5; a higher separation coefficient suggests that student performance potentially could be divided into a larger number of meaningfully separate groups.

The rating scale can have substantial effects on reliability, 8 while description of how a rating scale functions is a unique aspect of the MFRM. With analysis iterations of the 2007-2008 data, the number of rating scale categories were collapsed consecutively until improvements in reliability and/or separation were no longer found. The last positive iteration that led to positive improvements in reliability or separation was deemed an optimal rating scale for this evaluation rubric.

In the 2007-2008 analysis, iterations of the data where run through the MFRM. While only 4 rating scale categories had been included on the rubric, because some faculty members inserted 3 in-between categories, 7 categories had to be included in the analysis. This initial analysis based on a 7-category rubric provided a reliability coefficient (similar to Cronbach's alpha) of 0.98, while the separation coefficient was 6.31. The separation coefficient denoted 6 distinctly separate groups of students based on the items. Rating scale categories were collapsed, with “in-between” categories included in adjacent full-point categories. Table ​ Table1 1 shows the reliability and separation for the iterations as the rating scale was collapsed. As shown, the optimal evaluation rubric maintained a reliability of 0.98, but separation improved the reliability to 7.10 or 7 distinctly separate groups of students based on the items. Another distinctly separate group was added through a reduction in the rating scale while no change was seen to Cronbach's alpha, even though the number of rating scale categories was reduced. Table ​ Table1 1 describes the stepwise, sequential pattern across the final 4 rating scale categories analyzed. Informed by the 2007-2008 results, the 2008-2009 evaluation rubric (Figure ​ (Figure1) 1 ) used 4 rating scale categories and reliability remained high.

Evaluation Rubric Reliability and Separation with Iterations While Collapsing Rating Scale Categories.

a Reliability coefficient of variance in rater response that is reproducible (ie, Cronbach's alpha).

b Separation is a coefficient of item standard deviation divided by average measurement error and is an additional reliability coefficient.

c Optimal number of rating scale categories based on the highest reliability (0.98) and separation (7.1) values.

Evaluator Leniency

Described by Fleming and colleagues over half a century ago, 6 harsh raters (ie, hawks) or lenient raters (ie, doves) have also been demonstrated in more recent studies as an issue as well. 12 - 14 Shortly after 2008-2009 data were collected, those evaluations by multiple faculty evaluators were collated and analyzed in the MFRM to identify possible inconsistent scoring. While traditional interrater reliability does not deal with this issue, the MFRM had been used previously to illustrate evaluator leniency on licensing examinations for medical students and medical residents in the United Kingdom. 13 Thus, accounting for evaluator leniency may prove important to grading consistency (and reliability) in a course using multiple evaluators. Along with identifying evaluator leniency, the MFRM also corrected for this variability. For comparison, course grades were calculated by summing the evaluators' actual ratings (as discussed in the Design section) and compared with the MFRM-adjusted grades to quantify the degree of evaluator leniency occurring in this evaluation.

Measures created from the data analysis in the MFRM were converted to percentages using a common linear test-equating procedure involving the mean and standard deviation of the dataset. 15 To these percentages, student letter grades were assigned using the same traditional method used in 2007-2008 (ie, 90% = A, 80% - 89% = B, 70% - 79% = C, <70% = F). Letter grades calculated using the revised rubric and the MFRM then were compared to letter grades calculated using the previous rubric and course grading method.

In the analysis of the 2008-2009 data, the interrater reliability for the letter grades when comparing the 2 independent faculty evaluations for each presentation was 0.98 by Cohen's kappa. However, using the 3-facet MRFM revealed significant variation in grading. The interaction of evaluator leniency on student ability and item difficulty was significant, with a chi-square of p < 0.01. As well, the MFRM showed a reliability of 0.77, with a separation of 1.85 (ie, almost 2 groups of evaluators). The MFRM student ability measures were scaled to letter grades and compared with course letter grades. As a result, 2 B's became A's and so evaluator leniency accounted for a 2% change in letter grades (ie, 2 of 98 grades).

Validity and Grading

Explicit criterion-referenced standards for grading are recommended for higher evaluation validity. 3 , 16 - 18 The course coordinator completed 3 additional evaluations of a hypothetical student presentation rating the minimal criteria expected to describe each of an A, B, or C letter grade performance. These evaluations were placed with the other 196 evaluations (2 evaluators × 98 students) from 2008-2009 into the MFRM, with the resulting analysis report giving specific cutoff percentage scores for each letter grade. Unlike the traditional scoring method of assigning all items an equal weight, the MFRM ordered evaluation items from those more difficult for students (given more weight) to those less difficult for students (given less weight). These criterion-referenced letter grades were compared with the grades generated using the traditional grading process.

When the MFRM data were rerun with the criterion-referenced evaluations added into the dataset, a 10% change was seen with letter grades (ie, 10 of 98 grades). When the 10 letter grades were lowered, 1 was below a C, the minimum standard, and suggested a failing performance. Qualitative feedback from faculty evaluators agreed with this suggested criterion-referenced performance failure.

Measurement Model

Within modern test theory, the Rasch Measurement Model maps examinee ability with evaluation item difficulty. Items are not arbitrarily given the same value (ie, 1 point) but vary based on how difficult or easy the items were for examinees. The Rasch measurement model has been used frequently in educational research, 19 by numerous high-stakes testing professional bodies such as the National Board of Medical Examiners, 20 and also by various state-level departments of education for standardized secondary education examinations. 21 The Rasch measurement model itself has rigorous construct validity and reliability. 22 A 3-facet MFRM model allows an evaluator variable to be added to the student ability and item difficulty variables that are routine in other Rasch measurement analyses. Just as multiple regression accounts for additional variables in analysis compared to a simple bivariate regression, the MFRM is a multiple variable variant of the Rasch measurement model and was applied in this study using the Facets software (Linacre, Chicago, IL). The MFRM is ideal for performance-based evaluations with the addition of independent evaluator/judges. 8 , 23 From both yearly cohorts in this investigation, evaluation rubric data were collated and placed into the MFRM for separate though subsequent analyses. Within the MFRM output report, a chi-square for a difference in evaluator leniency was reported with an alpha of 0.05.

The presentation rubric was reliable. Results from the 2007-2008 analysis illustrated that the number of rating scale categories impacted the reliability of this rubric and that use of only 4 rating scale categories appeared best for measurement. While a 10-point Likert-like scale may commonly be used in patient care settings, such as in quantifying pain, most people cannot process more then 7 points or categories reliably. 24 Presumably, when more than 7 categories are used, the categories beyond 7 either are not used or are collapsed by respondents into fewer than 7 categories. Five-point scales commonly are encountered, but use of an odd number of categories can be problematic to interpretation and is not recommended. 25 Responses using the middle category could denote a true perceived average or neutral response or responder indecisiveness or even confusion over the question. Therefore, removing the middle category appears advantageous and is supported by our results.

With 2008-2009 data, the MFRM identified evaluator leniency with some evaluators grading more harshly while others were lenient. Evaluator leniency was indeed found in the dataset but only a couple of changes were suggested based on the MFRM-corrected evaluator leniency and did not appear to play a substantial role in the evaluation of this course at this time.

Performance evaluation instruments are either holistic or analytic rubrics. 26 The evaluation instrument used in this investigation exemplified an analytic rubric, which elicits specific observations and often demonstrates high reliability. However, Norman and colleagues point out a conundrum where drastically increasing the number of evaluation rubric items (creating something similar to a checklist) could augment a reliability coefficient though it appears to dissociate from that evaluation rubric's validity. 27 Validity may be more than the sum of behaviors on evaluation rubric items. 28 Having numerous, highly specific evaluation items appears to undermine the rubric's function. With this investigation's evaluation rubric and its numerous items for both presentation style and presentation content, equal numeric weighting of items can in fact allow student presentations to receive a passing score while falling short of the course objectives, as was shown in the present investigation. As opposed to analytic rubrics, holistic rubrics often demonstrate lower yet acceptable reliability, while offering a higher degree of explicit connection to course objectives. A summative, holistic evaluation of presentations may improve validity by allowing expert evaluators to provide their “gut feeling” as experts on whether a performance is “outstanding,” “sufficient,” “borderline,” or “subpar” for dimensions of presentation delivery and content. A holistic rubric that integrates with criteria of the analytic rubric (Figure ​ (Figure1) 1 ) for evaluators to reflect on but maintains a summary, overall evaluation for each dimension (delivery/content) of the performance, may allow for benefits of each type of rubric to be used advantageously. This finding has been demonstrated with OSCEs in medical education where checklists for completed items (ie, yes/no) at an OSCE station have been successfully replaced with a few reliable global impression rating scales. 29 - 31

Alternatively, and because the MFRM model was used in the current study, an items-weighting approach could be used with the analytic rubric. That is, item weighting based on the difficulty of each rubric item could suggest how many points should be given for that rubric items, eg, some items would be worth 0.25 points, while others would be worth 0.5 points or 1 point (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). As could be expected, the more complex the rubric scoring becomes, the less feasible the rubric is to use. This was the main reason why this revision approach was not chosen by the course coordinator following this study. As well, it does not address the conundrum that the performance may be more than the summation of behavior items in the Figure ​ Figure1 1 rubric. This current study cannot suggest which approach would be better as each would have its merits and pitfalls.

Rubric Item Weightings Suggested in the 2008-2009 Data Many-Facet Rasch Measurement Analysis

Regardless of which approach is used, alignment of the evaluation rubric with the course objectives is imperative. Objectivity has been described as a general striving for value-free measurement (ie, free of the evaluator's interests, opinions, preferences, sentiments). 27 This is a laudable goal pursued through educational research. Strategies to reduce measurement error, termed objectification , may not necessarily lead to increased objectivity. 27 The current investigation suggested that a rubric could become too explicit if all the possible areas of an oral presentation that could be assessed (ie, objectification) were included. This appeared to dilute the effect of important items and lose validity. A holistic rubric that is more straightforward and easier to score quickly may be less likely to lose validity (ie, “lose the forest for the trees”), though operationalizing a revised rubric would need to be investigated further. Similarly, weighting items in an analytic rubric based on their importance and difficulty for students may alleviate this issue; however, adding up individual items might prove arduous. While the rubric in Figure ​ Figure1, 1 , which has evolved over the years, is the subject of ongoing revisions, it appears a reliable rubric on which to build.

The major limitation of this study involves the observational method that was employed. Although the 2 cohorts were from a single institution, investigators did use a completely separate class of PharmD students to verify initial instrument revisions. Optimizing the rubric's rating scale involved collapsing data from misuse of a 4-category rating scale (expanded by evaluators to 7 categories) by a few of the evaluators into 4 independent categories without middle ratings. As a result of the study findings, no actual grading adjustments were made for students in the 2008-2009 presentation course; however, adjustment using the MFRM have been suggested by Roberts and colleagues. 13 Since 2008-2009, the course coordinator has made further small revisions to the rubric based on feedback from evaluators, but these have not yet been re-analyzed with the MFRM.

The evaluation rubric used in this study for student performance evaluations showed high reliability and the data analysis agreed with using 4 rating scale categories to optimize the rubric's reliability. While lenient and harsh faculty evaluators were found, variability in evaluator scoring affected grading in this course only minimally. Aside from reliability, issues of validity were raised using criterion-referenced grading. Future revisions to this evaluation rubric should reflect these criterion-referenced concerns. The rubric analyzed herein appears a suitable starting point for reliable evaluation of PharmD oral presentations, though it has limitations that could be addressed with further attention and revisions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Author contributions— MJP and EGS conceptualized the study, while MJP and GES designed it. MJP, EGS, and GES gave educational content foci for the rubric. As the study statistician, MJP analyzed and interpreted the study data. MJP reviewed the literature and drafted a manuscript. EGS and GES critically reviewed this manuscript and approved the final version for submission. MJP accepts overall responsibility for the accuracy of the data, its analysis, and this report.

Center for Teaching Innovation

Resource library.

• AACU VALUE Rubrics

Using rubrics

A rubric is a type of scoring guide that assesses and articulates specific components and expectations for an assignment. Rubrics can be used for a variety of assignments: research papers, group projects, portfolios, and presentations.  

Why use rubrics? 

Rubrics help instructors: 

• Assess assignments consistently from student-to-student. 
• Save time in grading, both short-term and long-term. 
• Give timely, effective feedback and promote student learning in a sustainable way. 
• Clarify expectations and components of an assignment for both students and course teaching assistants (TAs). 
• Refine teaching methods by evaluating rubric results. 

Rubrics help students: 

• Understand expectations and components of an assignment. 
• Become more aware of their learning process and progress. 
• Improve work through timely and detailed feedback. 

Considerations for using rubrics 

When developing rubrics consider the following:

• Although it takes time to build a rubric, time will be saved in the long run as grading and providing feedback on student work will become more streamlined.  
• A rubric can be a fillable pdf that can easily be emailed to students. 
• They can be used for oral presentations. 
• They are a great tool to evaluate teamwork and individual contribution to group tasks. 
• Rubrics facilitate peer-review by setting evaluation standards. Have students use the rubric to provide peer assessment on various drafts. 
• Students can use them for self-assessment to improve personal performance and learning. Encourage students to use the rubrics to assess their own work. 
• Motivate students to improve their work by using rubric feedback to resubmit their work incorporating the feedback. 

Getting Started with Rubrics 

• Start small by creating one rubric for one assignment in a semester.  
• Ask colleagues if they have developed rubrics for similar assignments or adapt rubrics that are available online. For example, the  AACU has rubrics  for topics such as written and oral communication, critical thinking, and creative thinking. RubiStar helps you to develop your rubric based on templates.  
• Examine an assignment for your course. Outline the elements or critical attributes to be evaluated (these attributes must be objectively measurable). 
• Create an evaluative range for performance quality under each element; for instance, “excellent,” “good,” “unsatisfactory.” 
• Avoid using subjective or vague criteria such as “interesting” or “creative.” Instead, outline objective indicators that would fall under these categories. 
• The criteria must clearly differentiate one performance level from another. 
• Assign a numerical scale to each level. 
• Give a draft of the rubric to your colleagues and/or TAs for feedback. 
• Train students to use your rubric and solicit feedback. This will help you judge whether the rubric is clear to them and will identify any weaknesses. 
• Rework the rubric based on the feedback. 

Center for Excellence in Teaching

Home > Resources > Group presentation rubric

Group presentation rubric

This is a grading rubric an instructor uses to assess students’ work on this type of assignment. It is a sample rubric that needs to be edited to reflect the specifics of a particular assignment. Students can self-assess using the rubric as a checklist before submitting their assignment.

Download this file

Download this file [63.74 KB]

Back to Resources Page

Advertisement

Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education

• Development Article
• Open access
• Published: 20 July 2021
• Volume 69 , pages 2663–2682, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Rob J. Nadolski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6585-0888 1 ,
• Hans G. K. Hummel 1 ,
• Ellen Rusman 1 &
• Kevin Ackermans 1  

10k Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Acquiring complex oral presentation skills is cognitively demanding for students and demands intensive teacher guidance. The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to identify and apply design guidelines in developing an effective formative assessment method for oral presentation skills during classroom practice, and (b) to develop and compare two analytic rubric formats as part of that assessment method. Participants were first-year secondary school students in the Netherlands ( n  = 158) that acquired oral presentation skills with the support of either a formative assessment method with analytic rubrics offered through a dedicated online tool (experimental groups), or a method using more conventional (rating scales) rubrics (control group). One experimental group was provided text-based and the other was provided video-enhanced rubrics. No prior research is known about analytic video-enhanced rubrics, but, based on research on complex skill development and multimedia learning, we expected this format to best capture the (non-verbal aspects of) oral presentation performance. Significant positive differences on oral presentation performance were found between the experimental groups and the control group. However, no significant differences were found between both experimental groups. This study shows that a well-designed formative assessment method, using analytic rubric formats, outperforms formative assessment using more conventional rubric formats. It also shows that higher costs of developing video-enhanced analytic rubrics cannot be justified by significant more performance gains. Future studies should address the generalizability of such formative assessment methods for other contexts, and for complex skills other than oral presentation, and should lead to more profound understanding of video-enhanced rubrics.

Similar content being viewed by others

Viewbrics: A Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Method to Mirror and Master Complex Skills with Video-Enhanced Rubrics and Peer Feedback in Secondary Education

Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of the Usability and Usefulness of the First Viewbrics-Prototype: A Methodology and Online Tool to Formatively Assess Complex Generic Skills with Video-Enhanced Rubrics (VER) in Dutch Secondary Education

The Dilemmas of Formulating Theory-Informed Design Guidelines for a Video Enhanced Rubric

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Both practitioners and scholars agree that students should be able to present orally (e.g., Morreale & Pearson, 2008 ; Smith & Sodano, 2011 ). Oral presentation involves the development and delivery of messages to the public with attention to vocal variety, articulation, and non-verbal signals, and with the aim to inform, self-express, relate to and persuade listeners (Baccarini & Bonfanti, 2015 ; De Grez et al., 2009a ; Quianthy, 1990 ). The current study is restricted to informative presentations (as opposed to persuasive presentations), as these are most common in secondary education. Oral presentation skills are complex generic skills of increasing importance for both society and education (Voogt & Roblin, 2012 ). However, secondary education seems to be in lack of instructional design guidelines for supporting oral presentation skills acquisition. Many secondary schools in the Netherlands are struggling with how to teach and assess students’ oral presentation skills, lack clear performance criteria for oral presentations, and fall short in offering adequate formative assessment methods that support the effective acquisition of oral presentation skills (Sluijsmans et al., 2013 ).

Many researchers agree that the acquisition and assessment of presentation skills should depart from a socio-cognitive perspective (Bandura, 1986 ) with emphasis on observation, practice, and feedback. Students practice new presentation skills by observing other presentations as modeling examples, then practice their own presentation, after which the feedback is addressed by adjusting their presentations towards the required levels. Evidently, delivering effective oral presentations requires much preparation, rehearsal, and practice, interspersed with good feedback, preferably from oral presentation experts. However, large class sizes in secondary schools of the Netherlands offer only limited opportunities for teacher-student interaction, and offer even fewer practice opportunities. Based on research on complex skill development and multimedia learning, it can be expected that video-enhanced analytic rubric formats best capture and guide oral presentation performance, since much non-verbal behavior cannot be captured in text (Van Gog et al., 2014 ; Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ).

Formative assessment of complex skills

To support complex skills acquisition under limited teacher guidance, we will need more effective formative assessment methods (Boud & Molloy, 2013 ) based on proven instructional design guidelines. During skills acquisition students will perceive specific feedback as more adequate than non-specific feedback (Shute, 2008 ). Adequate feedback should inform students about (i) their task-performance, (ii) their progress towards intended learning goals, and (iii) what they should do to further progress towards those goals (Hattie & Timperly, 2007 ; Narciss, 2008 ). Students receiving specific feedback on criteria and performance levels will become equipped to improve oral presentation skills (De Grez et al., 2009a ; Ritchie, 2016 ). Analytic rubrics are therefore promising formats to provide specific feedback on oral presentations, because they can demonstrate the relations between subskills and explain the open-endedness of ideal presentations (through textual descriptions and their graphical design).

Ritchie ( 2016 ) showed that adding structure and self-assessment to peer- and teacher-assessments resulted in better oral presentation performance. Students were required to use analytic rubrics for self-assessment when following their (project-based) classroom education. In this way, they had ample opportunity for observing and reflecting on (good) oral presentations attributes, which was shown to foster acquisition of their oral presentation skills.

Analytic rubrics incorporate performance criteria to inform teachers and students when preparing oral presentation. Such rubrics support mental model formation, and enable adequate feedback provision by teachers, peers, and self (Brookhart & Chen, 2015 ; Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ; Panadero & Jonsson, 2013 ). Such research is inconclusive about what are most effective formats and delivery media, but most studies dealt with analytic text-based rubrics delivered on paper. However, digital video-enhanced analytic rubrics are expected to be more effective for acquiring oral presentation skills, since many behavioral aspects refer to non-verbal actions and processes that can only be captured on video (e.g., body posture or use of voice during a presentation).

This study is situated within the Viewbrics project where video-modelling examples are integrated with analytic text-based rubrics (Ackermans et al., 2019a ). Video-modelling examples contain question prompts that illustrate behavior associated with (sub)skills performance levels in context, and are presented by young actors the target group can identify with. The question prompts require students to link behavior to performance levels, and build a coherent picture of the (sub)skills and levels. To the best of authors’ knowledge, there exist no previous studies on such video-enhanced analytic rubrics. The Viewbrics tool has been incrementally developed and validated with teachers and students to structure the formative assessment method in classroom settings (Rusman et al., 2019 ).

The purpose of our study is twofold. On the one hand, it investigates whether the application of evidence-based design guidelines results in a more effective formative assessment method in classroom. On the other hand, it investigates (within that method) whether video-enhanced analytic rubrics are more effective than text-based analytic rubrics.

Research questions

The twofold purpose of this study is stated by two research questions: (1) To what extent do analytic rubrics within formative assessment lead to better oral presentation performance? (the design-based part of this study); and (2) To what extent do video-enhanced analytic rubrics lead to better oral presentation performance (growth) than text-based analytic rubrics? (the experimental part of this study). We hypothesize that all students will improve their oral presentation performance in time, but that students in the experimental groups (receiving analytic rubrics designed according to proven design guidelines) will outperform a control group (receiving conventional rubrics) (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, we expect the experimental group using video-enhanced rubrics to achieve more performance growth than the experimental group using text-based rubrics (Hypothesis 2).

After this introduction, the second section describes previous research on design guidelines that were applied to develop the analytic rubrics in the present study. The actual design, development and validation of these rubrics is described in “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section. “ Method ” section describes the experimental method of this study, whereas “ Results ” section reports its results. Finally, in the concluding “ Conclusions and discussion ” section, main findings and limitations of the study are discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Previous research and design guidelines for formative assessment with analytic rubrics

Analytic rubrics are inextricably linked with assessment, either summative (for final grading of learning products) or formative (for scaffolding learning processes). They provide textual descriptions of skills’ mastery levels with performance indicators that describe concrete behavior for all constituent subskills at each mastery level (Allen & Tanner, 2006 ; Reddy, 2011 ; Sluijsmans et al., 2013 ) (see Figs.  1 and 2 in “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section for an example). Such performance indicators specify aspects of variation in the complexity of a (sub)skill (e.g., presenting for a small, homogeneous group as compared to presenting for a large heterogeneous group) and related mastery levels (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ). Analytic rubrics explicate criteria and expectations, can be used to check students’ progress, monitor learning, and diagnose learning problems, either by teachers, students themselves or by their peers (Rusman & Dirkx, 2017 ).

Subskills for oral presentation assessment

Specification of performance levels for criterium 4

Several motives for deploying analytic rubrics in education are distinguished. A review study by Panadero and Jonsson ( 2013 ) identified following motives: increasing transparency, reducing anxiety, aiding the feedback process, improving student self-efficacy, and supporting student self-regulation. Analytic rubrics also improve reliability among teachers when rating their students (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007 ). Evidence has shown that analytic rubrics can be utilized to enhance student performance and learning when they were used for formative assessment purposes in combination with metacognitive activities, like reflection and goal-setting, but research shows mixed results about their learning effectiveness (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013 ).

It remains unclear what is exactly needed to make their feedback effective (Reddy & Andrade, 2010 ; Reitmeier & Vrchota, 2009 ). Apparently, transparency of assessment criteria and learning goals (i.e., make expectations and criteria explicit) is not enough to establish effectiveness (Wöllenschläger et al., 2016 ). Several researchers stressed the importance of how and which feedback to provide with rubrics (Bower et al., 2011 ; De Grez et al., 2009b ; Kerby & Romine, 2009 ). We now continue this section by reviewing design guidelines for analytic rubrics we encountered in literature, and then specifically address what literature mentions about the added value of video-enhanced rubrics.

Design guidelines for analytic rubrics

Effective formative assessment methods for oral presentation and analytic rubrics should be based on proven instructional design guidelines (Van Ginkel et al., 2015 ). Table 1 presents an overview of (seventeen) guidelines on analytic rubrics we encountered in literature. Guidelines 1–4 inform us how to use rubrics for formative assessment; Guidelines 5–17 inform us how to use rubrics for instruction, with Guidelines 5–9 on a rather generic, meso level and Guidelines 10–17 on a more specific, micro level. We will now shortly describe them in relation to oral presentation skills.

Guideline 1: use analytic rubrics instead of rating scale rubrics if rubrics are meant for learning

Conventional rating-scale rubrics are easy to generate and use as they contain scores for each performance criterium (e.g., by a 5-point Likert scale). However, since each performance level is not clearly described or operationalized, rating can suffer from rater-subjectivity, and rating scales do not provide students with unambiguous feedback (Suskie, 2009 ). Analytic rubrics can address those shortcomings as they contain brief textual performance descriptions on all subskills, criteria, and performance levels of complex skills like presentation, but are harder to develop and score (Bargainnier, 2004 ; Brookhart, 2004 ; Schreiber et al., 2012 ).

Guideline 2: use self-assessment via rubrics for formative purposes

Analytic rubrics can encourage self-assessment and -reflection (Falchikov & Boud, 1989 ; Reitmeier & Vrchota, 2009 ), which appears essential when practicing presentations and reflecting on other presentations (Van Ginkel et al., 2017 ). The usefulness of self-assessment for oral presentation was demonstrated by Ritchie’s study ( 2016 ), but was absent in a study by De Grez et al. ( 2009b ) that used the same rubric.

Guideline 3: use peer-assessment via rubrics for formative purposes

Peer-feedback is more (readily) available than teacher-feedback, and can be beneficial for students’ confidence and learning (Cho & Cho, 2011 ; Murillo-Zamorano & Montanero, 2018 ), also for oral presentation (Topping, 2009 ). Students positively value peer-assessment if the circumstances guarantee serious feedback (De Grez et al., 2010 ; Lim et al., 2013 ). It can be assumed that using analytic rubrics positively influences the quality of peer-assessment.

Guideline 4: provide rubrics for usage by self, peers, and teachers as students appreciate rubrics

Students appreciate analytic rubrics because they support them in their learning, in their planning, in producing higher quality work, in focusing efforts, and in reducing anxiety about assignments (Reddy & Andrade, 2010 ), aspects of importance for oral presentation. While students positively perceive the use of peer-grading, the inclusion of teacher-grades is still needed (Mulder et al., 2014 ) and most valued by students (Ritchie, 2016 ).

Guidelines 5–9

Heitink et al. ( 2016 ) carried out a review study identifying five relevant prerequisites for effective classroom instruction on a meso-level when using analytic rubrics (for oral presentations): train teachers and students in using these rubrics, decide on a policy of their use in instruction, while taking school- and classroom contexts into account, and follow a constructivist learning approach. In the next section, it is described how these guidelines were applied to the design of this study’s classroom instruction.

Guidelines 10–17

Van Ginkel et al. ( 2015 ) review study presents a comprehensive overview of effective factors for oral presentation instruction in higher education on a micro-level. Although our research context is within secondary education, the findings from the aforementioned study seem very applicable as they were rooted in firmly researched and well-documented Instructional Design approaches. Their guidelines pertain to (a) instruction, (b) learning, and (c) assessment in the learning environment (Biggs, 2003 ). The next section describes how guidelines were applied to the design of this study’s online Viewbrics tool.

• Video-enhanced rubrics

Early analytic rubrics for oral presentations were all text-based descriptions. This study assumes that such analytic rubrics may fall short when used for learning to give oral presentations, since much of the required performance refers to motoric activities, time-consecutive operations and processes that can hardly be captured in text (e.g., body posture or use of voice during a presentation). Text-based rubrics also have a limited capacity to convey contextualized and more ‘tacit’ behavioral aspects (O’Donnevan et al., 2004 ), since ‘tacit knowledge’ (or ‘knowing how’) is interwoven with practical activities, operations, and behavior in the physical world (Westera, 2011 ). Finally, text leaves more space for personal interpretation (of performance indicators) than video, which negatively influences mental model formation and feedback consistency (Lew et al., 2010 ).

We can therefore expect video-enhanced rubrics to overcome such restrictions, as they can integrate modelling examples with analytic text-based explanations. The video-modelling examples and its embedded question prompts can illustrate behavior associated with performance levels in context, and contain information in different modalities (moving images, sound). Video-enhanced rubrics foster learning from active observation of video-modelling examples (De Grez et al., 2014 ; Rohbanfard & Proteau, 2013 ), especially when combined with textual performance indicators. Looking at effects of video-modelling examples, Van Gog et al. ( 2014 ) found an increased task performance when the video-modelling example of an expert was also shown. De Grez et al. ( 2014 ) found comparable results for learning to give oral presentations. Teachers in training assessing their own performance with video-modelling examples appeared to overrate their performance less than without examples (Baecher et al., 2013 ). Research on mastering complex skills indicates that both modelling examples (in a variety of application contexts) and frequent feedback positively influence the learning process and skills' acquisition (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ). Video-modelling examples not only capture the ‘know-how’ (procedural knowledge), but also elicit the ‘know-why’ (strategic/decisive knowledge).

Development of analytic rubrics tool

This section describes how design guidelines from previous research were applied in the actual development of the rubrics in the Viewbrics tool for our study, and then presents the subskills and levels for oral presentation skills as were defined.

Application of design guidelines

The previous section already mentioned that analytic rubrics should be restricted to formative assessment (Guidelines 2 and 3), and that there are good reasons to assume that a combination of teacher-, peer-, and self-assessment will improve oral presentations (Guidelines 1 and 4). Teachers and students were trained in rubric-usage (Guidelines 5 and 7), whereas students were motivated for using rubrics (Guideline 7). As participating schools were already using analytic rubrics, one might assume their positive initial attitude. Although the policy towards using analytic rubrics might not have been generally known at the work floor, the participating teachers in our study were knowledgeable (Guideline 6). We carefully considered the school context, as (a representative set of) secondary schools in the Netherlands were part of the Viewbrics team (Guideline 8). The formative assessment method was embedded within project-based education (Guideline 9).

Within this study and on the micro-level of design, the learning objectives for the first presentation were clearly specified by lower performance levels, whereas advice on students' second presentation focused on improving specific subskills, that had been performed with insufficient quality during the first presentation (Guideline 10). Students carried out two consecutive projects of increasing complexity (Project 1, Project 2) with authentic tasks, amongst which the oral presentations (Guideline 11). Students were provided with opportunities to observe peer-models to increase their self-efficacy beliefs and oral presentation competence. In our study, only students that received video-enhanced rubrics could observe videos with peer-models before their first presentation (Guideline 12). Students were allowed enough opportunities to rehearse their oral presentations, to increase their presentation competence, and to decrease their communication apprehension. Within our study, only two oral presentations could be provided feedback, but students could rehearse as often as they wanted outside the classroom (Guideline 13). We ensured that feedback in the rubrics was of high quality, i.e., explicit, contextual, adequately timed, and of suitable intensity for improving students’ oral presentation competence. Both experimental groups in the study used digital analytic rubrics within the Viewbrics tool (both teacher-, peer-, and self-feedback). The control group received feedback by a more conventional rubric (rating scale), and could therefore not use the formative assessment and reflection functions (Guideline 14). The setup of the study implied that all peers play a major role during formative assessment in both experimental groups, because they formatively assessed each oral presentation using the Viewbrics tool (Guideline 15). The control group received feedback from their teacher. Both experimental groups used the Viewbrics tool to facilitate self-assessment (Guideline 16). The control group did not receive analytic progress data to inform their self-assessment. Specific goal-setting within self-assessment has been shown to positively stimulate oral presentation performance, to improve self-efficacy and reduce presentation anxiety (De Grez et al., 2009a ; Luchetti et al., 2003 ), so the Viewbrics tool was developed to support both specific goal-setting and self-reflection (Guideline 17).

Subskills and levels for oral presentation

Reddy and Andrade ( 2010 ) stress that rubrics should be tailored to the specific learning objectives and target groups. Oral presentations in secondary education (our study context) involve generating and delivering informative messages with attention to vocal variety, articulation, and non-verbal signals. In this context, message composition and message delivery are considered important (Quianthy, 1990 ). Strong arguments (‘logos’) have to be presented in a credible (‘ethos’) and exciting (‘pathos’) way (Baccarini & Bonfanti, 2015 ). Public speaking experts agree that there is not one right way to do an oral presentation (Schneider et al., 2017 ). There is agreement that all presenters need much practice, commitment, and creativity. Effective presenters do not rigorously and obsessively apply communication rules and techniques, as their audience may then perceive the performance as too technical or artificial. But all presentations should demonstrate sufficient mastery of elementary (sub)skills in an integrated manner. Therefore, such skills should also be practiced as a whole (including knowledge and attitudes), making the attainment of a skill performance level more than the sum of its constituent (sub)skills (Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2013 ). A validated instrument for assessing oral presentation performance is needed to help teachers assess and support students while practicing.

When we started developing rubrics with the Viewbrics tool (late 2016), there were no studies or validated measuring instruments for oral presentation performance in secondary education, although several schools used locally developed, non-validated assessment forms (i.e., conventional rubrics). For instance, Schreiber et al. ( 2012 ) had developed an analytic rubric for public speaking skills assessment in higher education, aimed at faculty members and students across disciplines. They identified eleven (sub)skills of public speaking, that could be subsumed under three factors (‘topic adaptation’, ‘speech presentation’ and ‘nonverbal delivery’, similar to logos-ethos-pathos).

Such previous work holds much value, but still had to be adapted and elaborated in the context of the current study. This study elaborated and evaluated eleven subskills that can be identified within the natural flow of an oral presentation and its distinctive features (See Fig.  1 for an overview of subskills, and Fig.  2 for a specification of performance levels for a specific subskill).

Between brackets are names of subskills as they appear in the dashboard of the Viewbrics tool (Fig.  3 ).

Visualization of oral presentation progress and feedback in the Viewbrics tool

The upper part of Fig.  2 shows the scoring levels for first-year secondary school students for criterium 4 of the oral presentation assessment (four values, from more expert (4 points) to more novice (1 point), from right to left), an example of the conventional rating-scale rubrics. The lower part shows the corresponding screenshot from the Viewbrics tool, representing a text-based analytic rubric example. A video-enhanced analytic rubric example for this subskill provides a peer modelling the required behavior on expert level, with question prompts on selecting reliable and interesting materials. Performance levels were inspired by previous research (Ritchie, 2016 ; Schneider et al., 2017 ; Schreiber et al., 2012 ), but also based upon current secondary school practices in the Netherlands, and developed and tested with secondary school teachers and their students.

All eleven subskills are to be scored on similar four-point Likert scales, and have similar weights in determining total average scores. Two pilot studies tested the usability, validity and reliability of the assessment tool (Rusman et al., 2019 ). Based on this input, the final rubrics were improved and embedded in a prototype of the online Viewbrics tool, and used for this study. The formative assessment method consisted of six steps: (1) study the rubric; (2) practice and conduct an oral presentation; (3) conduct a self-assessment; (4) consult feedback from teacher and peers; (5) Reflect on feedback; and (6) select personal learning goal(s) for the next oral presentation.

After the second project (Project 2), that used the same setup and assessment method as for the first project, students in experimental groups could also see their visualized progress in the ‘dashboard’ of the Viewbrics tool (see Fig.  3 , with English translations provided between brackets), by comparing performance on their two project presentations during the second reflection assignment. The dashboard of the tool shows progress (inner circles), with green reflecting improvement on subskills, blue indicating constant subskills, and red indicating declining subskills. Feedback is provided by emoticons with text. Students’ personal learning goals after reflection are shown under ‘Mijn leerdoelen’ [My learning goals].

The previous sections described how design guidelines for analytic rubrics from literature (“ Previous research and design guidelines for formative assessment with analytic rubrics ” section) were applied in a formative assessment method with analytic rubrics (“ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section). “ Method ” section describes this study’s research design for comparing rubric formats.

Research design of the study

All classroom scenarios followed the same lesson plan and structure for project-based instruction, and consisted of two projects with specific rubric feedback provided in between. Both experimental groups used the same formative assessment method with validated analytic rubrics, but differed on the analytic rubric format (text-based, video-enhanced). The students of the control group did not use such a formative assessment method, and only received teacher-feedback (via a conventional rating-scale rubric that consisted of a standard form with attention points for presentations, without further instructions) on these presentations. All three scenarios required similar time investments for students. School classes (six) were randomly assigned to conditions (three), so students from the same class were in the same condition. Figure  4 graphically depicts an overview of the research design of the study.

Research design overview

A repeated-measures mixed-ANOVA on oral presentation performance (growth) was carried out to analyze data, with rubric-format (three conditions) as between-groups factor and repeated measures (two moments) as within groups factor. All statistical data analyses were conducted with SPSS version 24.

Participants

Participants were first-year secondary school students (all within the 12–13 years range) from two Dutch schools, with participants equally distributed over schools and conditions ( n  = 166, with 79 girls and 87 boys). Classes were randomly allocated to conditions. Most participants completed both oral presentations ( n  = 158, so an overall response rate of 95%). Data were collected (almost) equally from the video-enhanced rubrics condition ( n  = 51), text-based condition ( n  = 57), and conventional rubrics (control) condition ( n  = 50).

A related study within the same context and participants (Ackermans et al., 2019b ), analyzed the concept maps elicited from participants to reveal that their mental models (indicating mastery levels) for oral presentation across conditions were similar. From that finding we can conclude that students possessed similar mental models for presentation skills before starting the projects. Results from the online questionnaire (“ Anxiety, preparedness, and motivation ” section) reveal that students in experimental groups did not differ in anxiety, preparedness and motivation before their first presentation. Together with the teacher assessments of similarity of classes, we can assume similarity of students across conditions at the start of the experiment.

Materials and procedure

Teachers from both schools worked closely together in guaranteeing similar instruction and difficulty levels for both projects (Project 1, Project 2). Schools agreed to follow a standardized lesson plan for both projects and their oral presentation tasks. Core team members then developed (condition-specific) materials for teacher- and student workshops on how to use rubrics and provide instructions and feedback (Guidelines 5 and 7). This also assured that similar measures were taken for potential problems with anxiety, preparedness and motivation. Teachers received information about (condition-specific) versions of the Viewbrics tool (see “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section). The core team consisted of three researchers and three (project) teachers, with one teacher also supervising the others. The teacher workshops were given by the supervising teacher and two researchers before starting recruitment of students.

Teachers estimated similarity of all six classes with respect to students’ prior presentation skills before starting the first project. All classes were informed by an introduction letter from the core team and their teachers. Participation in this study was voluntary. Students and their parents/caretakers were informed about 4 weeks before the start of the first project, and received information on research-specific activities, time-investment and -schedule. Parents/caretakers signed, on behalf of their minors of age, an informed consent form before the study started. All were informed that data would be anonymized for scientific purposes, and that students could withdraw at any time without giving reasons.

School classes were randomly assigned to conditions. Students of experimental groups were informed that the usability of the Viewbrics tool for oral presentation skills acquisition were investigated, but were left unaware of different rubric formats. Students of the control group were informed that their oral presentation skills acquisition was investigated. From all students, concept maps about oral presentation were elicited (reflecting their mental model and mastery level). Students participated in workshops (specific for their condition and provided by their teacher) on how to use rubrics and provide peer-feedback (all materials remained available throughout the study).

Before giving their presentations on Project 1, students filled in the online questionnaire via LimeSurvey. Peers and teachers in experimental groups provided immediate feedback on given presentations, and students immediately had to self-assess their own presentations (step 3 of the assessment method). Subsequently, students could view the feedback and ratings given by their teacher and peers through the tool (step 4), were asked to reflect on this feedback (step 5), and to choose specific goals for their second oral presentation (step 6). In the control group, students directly received teachers’ feedback (verbally) after completing their presentation, but did not receive any reflection assignment. Control group students used a standard textual form with attention points (conventional rating-scale rubrics). After giving their presentations on the second project, students in the experimental groups got access to the dashboard of the Viewbrics tool (see “ Development of analytic rubrics tool ” section) to see their progress on subskills. About a week after the classes had ended, some semi-structured interviews were carried out by one of the researchers. Finally, one of the researchers functioned as a hotline for teachers in case of urgent questions during the study, and randomly observed some of the lessons.

Measures and instruments

Oral performance scores on presentations were measured by both teachers and peers. A short online questionnaire (with 6 items) was administered to students just before their first oral presentation at the end of Project 1 (see Fig.  4 ). Interviews were conducted with both teachers and students at the end of the intervention to collect more qualitative data on subjective perceptions.

Oral presentation performance

Students’ oral presentation performance progress was measured via comparison of the oral presentation performance scores on both oral presentations (with three months in between). Both presentations were scored by teachers using the video-enhanced rubric in all groups (half of the score in experimental groups, full score for control group). For participants in both experimental groups, oral presentation performance was also scored by peers and self, using the specific rubric-version (either video-enhanced or text-based) (other half of the score). For each of the (eleven) subskills, between 1 point (novice level) and 4 points (expert level) could be earned, with a maximum of 44 points for total performance score. For participants in the control group, the same scale applied but no scores were given by peers nor self. The inter-rater reliability of assessments between teachers and peers was a Cohen’s Kappa = 0.74 which is acceptable.

Anxiety, preparedness, and motivation

Just before presenting, students answered the short questionnaire with five-point Likert scores (from 0 = totally disagree to 4 = totally agree) as additional control for potential differences in anxiety, preparedness and motivation, since especially these factors might influence oral presentation performance (Reddy & Andrade, 2010 ). Notwithstanding this, teachers were the major source to control for similarity of conditions with respect to dealing with presentation anxiety, preparedness and motivation. Two items for anxiety were: “I find it exciting to give a presentation” and “I find it difficult to give a presentation”, a subscale that appeared to have a satisfactory internal reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.90. Three items for preparedness were: “I am well prepared to give my presentation”, “I have often rehearsed my presentation”, and “I think I’ve rehearsed my presentation enough”, a subscale that appeared to have a satisfactory Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.75. The item for motivation was: “I am motivated to give my motivation”. Unfortunately, the online questionnaire was not administered within the control group, due to unforeseen circumstances.

Semi-structured interviews with teachers (six) and students (thirty) were meant to gather qualitative data on the practical usability and usefulness of the Viewbrics tool. Examples of questions are: “Have you encountered any difficulties in using the Viewbrics online tool? If any, could you please mention which one(s)” (both students of experimental groups and teachers); “Did the feedback help you to improve your presentation skills? If not, what feedback do you need to improve your presentation skills?” (just students); “How do you evaluate the usefulness of formative assessment?” (both students and teachers); “Would you like to organize things differently in applying formative assessment as during this study? If so, what would you like to organize different?” (just teachers); “How much time did you spend on providing feedback? Did you need more or less time than before?” (just teachers).

Interviews with teachers and students revealed that the reported rubrics approach was easy to use and useful within the formative assessment method. Project teachers could easily stick to the lessons plans as agreed upon in advance. However, project teachers regarded the classroom scenarios as relatively time-consuming. They expected that for some other schools it might be challenging to follow the Viewbrics approach. None of the project teachers had to consult the hotline during the study, and no deviations from the lesson plans were observed by the researchers.

Most important results on the performance measures and questionnaire are presented and compared between conditions.

A mixed ANOVA, with oral presentation performance as within-subjects factor (two scores) and rubric format as between-subjects factor (three conditions), revealed an overall and significant improvement of oral presentation performance over time, with F (1, 157) = 58.13, p  < 0.01, η p 2  = 0.27. Significant differences over time were also found between conditions, with F (2, 156) = 17.38, p  < 0.01, η p 2  = 0.18. Tests of between-subjects effects showed significant differences between conditions, with F (2, 156) = 118.97, p  < 0.01, η p 2  = 0.59, and both experimental groups outperforming the control group as expected (so we could accept H1). However, only control group students showed significantly progress on performance scores over time (at the 0.01 level). At both measures, no significant differences between experimental groups were found as was expected (so we had to reject H2). For descriptives of group averages (over time) see Table 2 .

A post-hoc analysis, using multiple pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction, confirms that experimental groups significantly (with p  < 0.01 level) outperform the control group at both moments in time, and that both experimental groups not to differ significantly at both measures. Regarding performance progress over time, only the control group shows significant growth (again with p < 0.01). The difference between experimental groups in favour of video-enhanced rubrics did ‘touch upon’ significance ( p  = 0.053), but formally H2 had to be rejected. This finding however is a promising trend to be further explored with larger numbers of participants.

An independent t-test comparing the similarity of participants in both experimental groups before their first presentation for anxiety, preparedness, motivation showed no difference, with t (1,98) = 1.32 and p  = 0.19 for anxiety, t (1,98) = − 0.14 and p  = 0.89 for preparedness, and t (1,98) = − 1.24 and p  = 0.22 for motivation (see Table 3 for group averages).

As mentioned in the previous section (interviews with teachers), it was assessed by teachers that presentation anxiety, preparedness and motivation in the control group were no different from both experimental groups. It can therefore be assumed that all groups were similar regarding presentation anxiety, preparedness and motivation before presenting, and that these factors did not confound oral presentation results. There are missing questionnaire data from 58 respondents: Video-enhanced (one respondent), Text-based (seven respondents), and Control group (fifty respondents), respectively.

Conclusions and discussion

The first purpose was to study if applying evidence-informed design guidelines in the development of formative assessment with analytic rubrics supports oral presentation performance of first-year secondary school students in the Netherlands. Students that used such validated rubrics indeed outperform students using common rubrics (so H1 could be accepted). This study has demonstrated that the design guidelines can also be effectively applied and used for secondary education, which makes them more generic. The second purpose was to study if video-enhanced rubrics would be more beneficial to oral presentation skills acquisition when compared to text-based rubrics, but we did not find significant differences here (so H2 had to be rejected). However, post-hoc analysis shows that the growth on performance scores over time indeed seems higher when using video-enhanced rubrics, a promising difference that is ‘only marginally’ significant. Preliminary qualitative findings from the interviews point out that the Viewbrics tool can be easily integrated into classroom instruction and appears usable for the target audiences (both teachers and students), although teachers state it is rather time-consuming to conform to all guidelines.

All students had prior experience with oral presentations (from primary schools) and relatively high oral presentation scores at the start of the study, so there remained limited room for improvement between their first and second oral presentation. Participants in the control group scored relatively low on their first presentation, so had more room for improvement during the study. In addition, the somewhat more difficult content of the second project (Guideline 11) might have slightly reduced the quality of the second oral presentation. Also, more intensive training, additional presentations and their assessments might have demonstrated more added value of the analytic rubrics. Learning might have occurred, since adequate mental models of skills are not automatically applied during performance (Ackermans et al., 2019b ).

A first limitation (and strength at the same time) of this study was its contextualization within a specific subject domain and educational sector over a longer period of time, which implies we cannot completely exclude some influence of confounding factors. A second limitation is that the Viewbrics tool has been specifically designed for formative assessment, and not meant for summative assessment purposes. Although our study revealed the inter-rater reliability of our rubrics to be satisfactory (see “ Measures and instruments ” section), it is likely to become lower and less suitable when compared to more traditional summative assessment methods (Jonsson & Svinby, 2007 ). Thirdly, just having a reliable rubric bears no evidence for content-validity (representativeness, fidelity of scoring structure to the construct domain) or generalizability to other domains and educational sectors (Jonsson & Svinby, 2007 ). Fourth, one might criticize the practice-based research design of our study, as this is less-controlled than laboratory studies. We acknowledge that the application of more unobtrusive and objective measures to better understand the complex relationship between instructional characteristics, student characteristics and cognitive learning processes and strategies could best be achieved in a combination of more laboratory research and more practice-based research. Notwithstanding some of these issues, we have deliberately chosen for design-based research and evidence-informed findings from educational practice.

Future research could examine the Viewbrics approach to formative assessment for oral presentation skills in different contexts (other subject matters and educational sectors). The Viewbrics tool could be extended with functions for self-assessment (e.g., record and replay one's own presentations), for coping with speech anxiety (Leary & Kowalski, 1995 ), and goal-setting (De Grez et al., 2009a ). As this is a first study on video-enhanced rubrics, more fine-grained and fundamental research into beneficial effects on cognitive processes is needed, also to justify the additional development costs. Development of video-enhanced rubrics is more costly when compared to text-based rubrics. Another line of research might be directed to develop multiple measures for objectively determining oral presentation competence, for example using sensor-based data gathering and algorithms for data-gathering, guidance, and meaningful interpretation (Schneider et al., 2017 ), or direct measures of cortisol levels for speaking anxiety (Bartholomay & Houlihan, 2016 ; Merz & Wolf, 2015 ). Other instructional strategies might be considered, for example repeated practice of the same oral presentation might result in performance improvement, as has been suggested by Ritchie ( 2016 ). This also would enable to downsize the importance of presentation content and to put more focus on presentation delivery. The importance of finding good instructional technologies to support complex oral presentation skills will remain of importance throughout the twenty-first century and beyond.

Ackermans, K., Rusman, E., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Specht, M. (2019a). Solving instructional design dilemmas to develop Video-Enhanced Rubrics with modeling examples to support mental model development of complex skills: The Viewbrics-project use case. Educational Technology Research & Development, 67 (4), 993–1002.

Google Scholar  

Ackermans, K., Rusman, E., Nadolski, R. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Specht, M. (2019b). Video-or text-based rubrics: What is most effective for mental model growth of complex skills within formative assessment in secondary schools? Computers in Human Behavior, 101 , 248–258.

Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2006). Rubrics: Tools for making learning goals and evaluation criteria explicit for both teachers and learners. CBE Life Sciences Education, 5 (3), 197–203.

Baccarini, C., & Bonfanti, A. (2015). Effective public speaking: A conceptual framework in the corporate-communication field. Corporate Communications, 20 (3), 375–390.

Baecher, L., Kung, S. C., Jewkes, A. M., & Rosalia, C. (2013). The role of video for self-evaluation in early field experiences. Teacher Teaching Education, 36 , 189–197.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall.

Bargainnier, S. (2004). Fundamentals of rubrics. In D. Apple (Ed.), Faculty guidebook (pp. 75–78). Pacific Crest.

Bartholomay, E. M., & Houlihan, D. D. (2016). Public Speaking Anxiety Scale: Preliminary psychometric data scale validation. Personality Individual Differences, 94 , 211–215.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at University . Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38 (6), 698–712.

Bower, M., Cavanagh, M., Moloney, R., & Dao, M. (2011). Developing communication competence using an online Video Reflection system: Pre-service teachers’ experiences. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (4), 311–326.

Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Assessment theory for college classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 100 , 5–14.

Brookhart, S. M., & Chen, F. (2015). The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review, 67 (3), 343–368.

Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39 (5), 629–643.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Berings, M. (2010). Peer assessment of oral presentation skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 1776–1780.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009a). The impact of goal orientation, self-reflection and personal characteristics on the acquisition of oral presentation skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24 (3), 293–306.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009b). The impact of an innovative instructional intervention on the acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education. Computers & Education, 53 (1), 112–120.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2014). The differential impact of observational learning and practice-bases learning on the development of oral presentation skills in higher education. Higher Education Research Development, 33 (2), 256–271.

Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59 (4), 395–430.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112.

Heitink, M. C., Van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., & Schildkamp, K. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17 , 50–62.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2 (2), 130–144.

Kerby, D., & Romine, J. (2009). Develop oral presentation skills through accounting curriculum design and course-embedded assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 85 (3), 172–179.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety . Guilford Press.

Lew, M. D. N., Alwis, W. A. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Accuracy of students’ self-assessment and their beliefs about its utility. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (2), 135–156.

Lim, B. T., Moriarty, H., Huthwaite, M., Gray, L., Pullon, S., & Gallagher, P. (2013). How well do medical students rate and communicate clinical empathy? Medical Teacher, 35 , 946–951.

Luchetti, A. E., Phipss, G. L., & Behnke, R. R. (2003). Trait anticipatory public speaking anxiety as a function of self-efficacy expectations and self-handicapping strategies. Communication Research Reports, 20 (4), 348–356.

Merz, C. J., & Wolf, O. T. (2015). Examination of cortisol and state anxiety at an academic setting with and without oral presentation. The International Journal on the Biology of Stress, 18 (1), 138–142.

Morreale, S. P., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important: Centrality of discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education, 57 , 224–240.

Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15 (2), 157–171.

Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., & Montanero, M. (2018). Oral presentations in higher education: A comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43 (1), 138–150.

Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–144). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

O’Donnevan, B., Price, M., Rust, C., & Donovan, B. O. (2004). Teaching in higher education know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teacher Higher Education, 9 (3), 325–335.

Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposed revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9 , 129–144.

Quianthy, R. L. (1990). Communication is life: Essential college sophomore speaking and listening competencies . National Communication Association.

Reddy, Y. M. (2011). Design and development of rubrics to improve assessment outcomes. Quality Assurance in Education, 19 (1), 84–104.

Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (4), 435–448.

Reitmeier, C. A., & Vrchota, D. A. (2009). Self-assessment of oral communication presentations in food science and nutrition. J. of Food Science Education, 8 (4), 88–92.

Ritchie, S. M. (2016). Self-assessment of video-recorded presentations: Does it improve skills? Active Learning in Higher Education, 17 (3), 207–221.

Rohbanfard, H., & Proteau, L. (2013). Live versus video presentation techniques in the observational learning of motor skills. Trends Neuroscience Education, 2 , 27–32.

Rusman, E., & Dirkx, K. (2017). Developing rubrics to assess complex (generic) skills in the classroom: How to distinguish skills’ mastery Levels? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.7275/xfp0-8228

Article   Google Scholar  

Rusman, E., Nadolski, R. J., & Ackermans, K. (2019). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the usability and usefulness of the first Viewbrics-prototype: A methodology and online tool to formatively assess complex generic skills with video-enhanced rubrics in Dutch secondary education. In S. Draaijer, D. Joosten-ten Brinke, E. Ras (Eds), Technology enhanced assessment. TEA 2018. Communications in computer and information science (Vol. 1014, pp. 27–41). Springer, Cham.

Schneider, J., Börner, D., Van Rosmalen, P., & Specht, M. (2017). Presentation trainer: What experts and computers can tell about your nonverbal communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33 (2), 164–177.

Schreiber, L. M., Paul, G. D., & Shibley, L. R. (2012). The development and test of the public speaking competence rubric. Communication Education, 61 (3), 205–233.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 153–189.

Sluijsmans, D., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2013). Toetsen met leerwaarde [Assessments with value for learning] . The Hague, The Netherlands: NWO. Retrieved from https://sluijsmans.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Toetsen-met-leerwaarde.pdf

Smith, C. M., & Sodano, T. M. (2011). Integrating lecture capture as a teaching strategy to improve student presentation skills through self-assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 , 151–162.

Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48 (1), 20–27.

Van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2015). Towards a set of design principles for developing oral presentation competence: A synthesis of research in higher education. Educational Research Review, 14 , 62–80.

Van Ginkel, S., Laurentzen, R., Mulder, M., Mononen, A., Kyttä, J., & Kortelainen, M. J. (2017). Assessing oral presentation performance: Designing a rubric and testing its validity with an expert group. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9 (3), 474–486.

Van Gog, T., Verveer, I., & Verveer, L. (2014). Learning from video modeling examples: Effects of seeing the human model’s face. Computers and Education, 72 , 323–327.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Ten steps to complex learning (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44 , 299–321.

Westera, W. (2011). On the changing nature of learning context: Anticipating the virtual extensions of the world. Educational Technology and Society, 14 , 201–212.

Wöllenschläger, M., Hattie, J., Machts, N., Möller, J., & Harms, U. (2016). What makes rubrics effective in teacher-feedback? Transparency of learning goals is not enough. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45 , 1–11.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on our paper and all students and teachers that participated in this study as well as the management from the participating schools.

The Viewbrics-project is funded by the practice-oriented research program of the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO), part of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), under Grant Number: 405-15-550.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Rob J. Nadolski, Hans G. K. Hummel, Ellen Rusman & Kevin Ackermans

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob J. Nadolski .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This research has been approved by the ethics committee of the author's institution (U2017/05559/HVM).

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nadolski, R.J., Hummel, H.G.K., Rusman, E. et al. Rubric formats for the formative assessment of oral presentation skills acquisition in secondary education. Education Tech Research Dev 69 , 2663–2682 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7

Download citation

Accepted : 03 July 2021

Published : 20 July 2021

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital rubrics
• Analytic rubrics
• Oral presentation skills
• Formative assessment method
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Rubric for Evaluating Student Presentations

• Kellie Hayden
• Categories : Student assessment tools & principles
• Tags : Teaching methods, tools & strategies

Make Assessing Easier with a Rubric

The rubric that you use to assess your student presentations needs to be clear and easy to read by your students. A well-thought out rubric will also make it easier to grade speeches.

Before directing students to create a presentation, you need to tell them how they will be evaluated with the rubric. For every rubric, there are certain criteria listed or specific areas to be assessed. For the rubric download that is included, the following are the criteria: content, eye contact, volume and clarity, flow, confidence and attitude, visual aids, and time.

Student Speech Presentation Rubric Download

Assessment Tool Explained in Detail

Content : The information in the speech should be organized. It should have an engaging introduction that grabs the audience’s attention. The body of the speech should include details, facts and statistics to support the main idea. The conclusion should wrap up the speech and leave the audiences with something to remember.

In addition, the speech should be accurate. Teachers should decide how students should cite their sources if they are used. These should be turned in at the time of the speech. Good speakers will mention their sources during the speech.

Last, the content should be clear. The information should be understandable for the audience and not confusing or ambiguous.

Eye Contact

Students eyes should not be riveted to the paper or note cards that they prepare for the presentation. It is best if students write talking points on their note cards. These are main points that they want to discuss. If students write their whole speech on the note cards, they will be more likely to read the speech word-for-word, which is boring and usually monotone.

Students should not stare at one person or at the floor. It is best if they can make eye contact with everyone in the room at least once during the presentation. Staring at a spot on the wall is not great, but is better than staring at their shoes or their papers.

Volume and Clarity

Students should be loud enough so that people sitting in the back of the room can hear and understand them. They should not scream or yell. They need to practice using their diaphragm to project their voice.

Clarity means not talking too fast, mumbling, slurring or stuttering. When students are nervous, this tends to happen. Practice will help with this problem.

When speaking, the speaker should not have distracting pauses during the speech. Sometimes a speaker may pause for effect; this is to tell the audience that what he or she is going to say next is important. However, when students pause because they become confused or forget the speech, this is distracting.

Another problem is verbal fillers. Student may say “um,” “er” or “uh” when they are thinking or between ideas. Some people do it unintentionally when they are nervous.

If students chronically say “um” or use any type of verbal filler, they first need to be made aware of the problem while practicing. To fix this problem, a trusted friend can point out when they doing during practice. This will help students be aware when they are saying the verbal fillers.

Confidence and Attitude

When students speak, they should stand tall and exude confidence to show that what they are going to say is important. If they are nervous or are not sure about their speech, they should not slouch. They need to give their speech with enthusiasm and poise. If it appears that the student does not care about his or her topic, why should the audience? Confidence can many times make a boring speech topic memorable.

Visual Aids

The visual that a student uses should aid the speech. This aid should explain a facts or an important point in more detail with graphics, diagrams, pictures or graphs.

These can be presented as projected diagrams, large photos, posters, electronic slide presentations, short clips of videos, 3-D models, etc. It is important that all visual aids be neat, creative and colorful. A poorly executed visual aid can take away from a strong speech.

One of the biggest mistakes that students make is that they do not mention the visual aid in the speech. Students need to plan when the visual aid will be used in the speech and what they will say about it.

Another problem with slide presentations is that students read word-for-word what is on each slide. The audience can read. Students need to talk about the slide and/or offer additional information that is not on the slide.

The teacher needs to set the time limit. Some teachers like to give a range. For example, the teacher can ask for short speeches to be1-2 minutes or 2-5 minutes. Longer ones could be 10-15 minutes. Many students will not speak long enough while others will ramble on way beyond the limit. The best way for students to improve their time limit is to practice.

The key to a good speech is for students to write out an outline, make note cards and practice. The speech presentation rubric allows your students to understand your expectations.

• A Research Guide.com. Chapter 3. Public Speaking .
• 10 Fail Proof Tips for Delivering a Powerful Speech by K. Stone on DumbLittleMan.
• Photo credit: Kellie Hayden
• Planning Student Presentations by Laura Goering for Carleton College.

The Visual Communication Guy

Learn Visually. Communicate Powerfully.

• About The VCG
• Contact Curtis
• Five Paragraph Essay
• IMRaD (Science)
• Indirect Method (Bad News)
• Inverted Pyramid (News)
• Martini Glass
• Narrative Format
• Rogerian Method
• Toulmin Method
• Apostrophes
• Exclamation Marks (Points)
• Parentheses
• Periods (Full Stops)
• Question Marks
• Quotation Marks
• Plain Language
• APPEALS: ETHOS, PATHOS, LOGOS
• CLUSTER ANALYSIS
• FANTASY-THEME
• GENERIC CRITICISM
• IDEOLOGICAL CRITICISM
• NEO-ARISTOTELIAN
• O.P.T.I.C. (VISUAL ANALSYIS)
• S.O.A.P.S.T.O.N.E. (WRITTEN ANALYSIS)
• S.P.A.C.E.C.A.T. (RHETORICAL ANALYSIS)
• BRANCHES OF ORATORY
• FIGURES OF SPEECH
• FIVE CANONS
• LOGICAL FALLACIES
• Information Design Rules
• Arrangement

Organization

• Negative Space
• Iconography
• Photography
• Which Chart Should I Use?
• “P” is for PREPARE
• "O" is for OPEN
• "W" is for WEAVE
• “E” is for ENGAGE
• PRESENTATION EVALUTION RUBRIC
• POWERPOINT DESIGN
• ADVENTURE APPEAL
• BRAND APPEAL
• ENDORSEMENT APPEAL
• HUMOR APPEAL
• LESS-THAN-PERFECT APPEAL
• MASCULINE & FEMININE APPEAL
• MUSIC APPEAL
• PERSONAL/EMOTIONAL APPEAL
• PLAIN APPEAL
• PLAY-ON-WORDS APPEAL
• RATIONAL APPEAL
• ROMANCE APPEAL
• SCARCITY APPEAL
• SNOB APPEAL
• SOCIAL APPEAL
• STATISTICS APPEAL
• YOUTH APPEAL
• The Six Types of Résumés You Should Know About
• Why Designing Your Résumé Matters
• The Anatomy of a Really Good Résumé: A Good Résumé Example
• What a Bad Résumé Says When It Speaks
• How to Write an Amazing Cover Letter: Five Easy Steps to Get You an Interview
• Make Your Boring Documents Look Professional in 5 Easy Steps
• Business Letters
• CONSUMER PROFILES
• ETHNOGRAPHY RESEARCH
• FOCUS GROUPS
• OBSERVATIONS
• SURVEYS & QUESTIONNAIRES
• S.W.O.T. ANALYSES
• USABILITY TESTS
• CITING SOURCES: MLA FORMAT
• MLA FORMAT: WORKS CITED PAGE
• MLA FORMAT: IN-TEXT CITATIONS
• MLA FORMAT: BOOKS & PAMPHLETS
• MLA FORMAT: WEBSITES AND ONLINE SOURCES
• MLA FORMAT: PERIODICALS
• MLA FORMAT: OTHER MEDIA SOURCES
• Course Syllabi
• Checklists and Peer Reviews (Downloads)
• Communication
• Poster Prints
• Poster Downloads
• Handout & Worksheet Downloads
• QuickGuide Downloads
• Downloads License Agreements

Giving Effective Presentations: 50 Things to Consider (with evaluation rubric)

Effective presentations require that you put a good deal of thought into how your audience will react to every component of your presentation. While an engaging personality or an intriguing subject matter will help, you can make any topic work well if you follow several key guidelines, divided into nine areas: Audience Adaptation ; Opening ; Organization ; Content & Ethos ; Storytelling ; Visual Display ; Delivery ; Team Interplay ; and Conclusion .

Review this evaluation checklist to make sure you’ve covered all the important areas for giving an effective presentation. Descriptions of each of the 50 components are listed below.

[purchase_link id=”6288″ style=”button” color=”blue” text=”Download PDF of this Evaluation Rubric”]

Audience Adaptation

Adapting to your audience is, above all else, the most important thing you must consider. Make sure you think about what they care about (not what you find interesting), what they’ll expect to hear, what they don’t already understand (and what they do), and so forth. If you don’t know your audience before going into a presentation, research them. Ask questions. The more you know about them, the better you can prepare for them.

Use appropriate tone:  Just like you speak differently with your friends than you likely do with your mother, you’ll want to change the way you speak to one audience over another. Ask yourself: What level of formality is appropriate? Should I attempt humor? (In most cases, unless you  know  you’re funny, you may want to avoid attempting to be in order to steer clear of awkwardness if a joke doesn’t go well.) Will my audience be relaxed, tense, or bored? How can I adapt to that?

Use appropriate jargon & acronyms:  Every audience will have a certain level of understanding of your subject matter prior to seeing you present. It’s critically important that you understand what specific terms they know and don’t know so that you don’t use words or acronyms that are confusing to them. If you use industry-specific jargon or acronyms, make sure your audience knows them in advance. If they don’t, define the terms for them.

Make topic relevant to audience:  Make sure that your audience will care about your topic. Sometimes you’ll present information to your boss because he asked you to. In this case, the topic will probably automatically be relevant. But in other cases, your audience may be there because they have to be for work, or they may be there to learn more information but may not fully understand what they’re about to learn. Make sure, regardless of what the situation is, that you tailor the message to the audience’s situation and make them care about the topic.

Knowledge of subject matter appropriate for audience:  Present depth of knowledge at the level your audience can understand. If you’re a chemistry professor speaking about nutrition to pharmaceutical researchers, your depth of explanation will be quite different than if you’re speaking to college freshmen about nutrition. Two things are important here: if your audience knows a lot about your topic going in, don’t patronize or bore them by telling them things they already know. If they don’t know much about the topic, be clear and detailed to make sure they’re on the same page as you and start from a common ground they can relate to.

Your opening is key to engaging your audience right from the beginning. If you bore them up front, you may have lost them for good.

Start with Strong attention-grabber:  Attention grabbers can come in may forms. Some of the most common include telling stories; sharing fascinating quotes; giving alarming or surprising statistics; asking your audience a question; telling a joke (but only if it’s both relevant  and  funny); creating an imaginary scenario (“imagine you’re stuck on an island…”); surprising your audience; or giving a demonstration or object lesson. Regardless of what you choose, make it relevant, make it pithy, and make it work for your audience. Do the attention-grabber well, and you’ll be on pace to keep you audience engaged the entire time.

Make Your Topic Clear:  There should be no question in your audience’s mind, even just a couple minutes into it, where you are headed with the presentation. State your topic, address the issues, and make it relevant.

Make Your Topic Interesting:  Interest comes with relevancy and what we call “exigency.” Make your audience care by letting them know how your topic affects them. Give the facts, stories, anecdotes, issues, etc. that will intrigue and interest them.

Forecast a clear direction for presentation:  At the end of your opening, tell the audience what to expect. What are you going to cover? Create a clear road map so that they know what to expect and so that they know where you’re at in the middle of the presentation.

Organization is key to keeping your audience fully engaged for the entire presentation. As soon as you veer off track somewhere, you begin to lose the attention of your audience.

Follow the Road Map:  In your introduction, you gave your audience the road map. Now be sure that you follow it in the order that you said you would. Stick to the plan from start to finish.

Include Frequent Transitions & Signposts:  Transitions are statements that connect a previous section or idea of your presentation to the next section or idea. Use words and phrases that link the two so that there is a clear connection between ideas and so that audiences can sense a progression. A “signpost” is a kind of transition. It’s a word or phrase that reminds the audience where you are in the presentation. You might connect a dot, remind the audience where you are, or let them know what’s coming next.

Progress towards Finish:  Just like in any good movie, there needs to be a sort of plot building at all times. You’ll want to always be building towards a finish, with each piece of your presentation moving you towards some kind of conclusion. Remember that all good communications should have a beginning, middle, and end. Be sure that each component of the middle progresses towards a clear and meaningful end.

Provide Summary(ies) of Main Points:  If your presentation goes beyond 10 or 15 minutes, it may be helpful to occasionally remind your audience what’s been said. Help your audience understand, at every step along the way, what is happening and what the information or data means.

Connect Loose Dots:  If you begin a story or anecdote, be sure to tell the ending at some point. If you provide interesting data, make sure you let the audience know what it means. If you’re leading towards a recommendation, be sure that the recommendation is based on research or evidence you just suggested. Don’t leave your audience hanging in any capacity.

Content & Ethos

Ethos refers to your credibility. In order for an audience to fully appreciate and follow your arguments and positions, you must show that you are knowledgeable of the subject matter and that the information you are presenting is founded on something that your audience can agree is good supporting evidence.

Use Only Persuasive Argumentation:  Avoid presenting an argument with gaps or holes. You may wish to study the  logical fallacies for more insight on where arguments can go wrong. When you make a statement, make sure you qualify it and provide appropriate support.

Conduct Sound Research:  As you know and understand your audience, you should know what they will consider valuable and worthwhile research for your type of presentation. Generally speaking, you want to build your argument based on a variety of sources. You might provide case studies, survey data, secondary research (information from books, journals, etc.), observations, testimonials, expert endorsement, or something else. Regardless, you must convince your audience that you’ve done your due diligence.

Include Only Relevant Material:  While this may seem obvious, don’t present material that isn’t directly relevant to your key points. Don’t get distracted and stick to your organizational plan. Make sure all content has a purpose and that it leads towards that strong conclusion.

Provide Convincing Analyses and Conclusions:  Show your audience how much you know about the subject matter by giving them clear, logical analyses of your data and draw conclusions that come directly from your data. Avoid drawing conclusions that come from personal opinion, but rather focus on what your research and data suggest.

Pertinent Data and Evidence:  Be sure that all of you data and evidence is directly related to your overall message. Don’t pull in facts simply because you find them interesting. Again, all content needs to build or progress towards something. Don’t get sidetracked with tangentially related data.

Storytelling

All good presentations–no matter for business, school, clubs, or church–are better when stories are told. Human beings have a natural inclination for stories. People want to know how stories end. Make stories work for your presentation by describing people (characters), situations (settings), problems, climaxes, and resolutions. All presentations should have at least one story, but you may incorporate many more.

Read: How to Organize a Paper: The Narrative Format

Tell Stories with Purpose:  Don’t tell stories just to tell stories, but make connections between what you are telling your audience with a real example.

Tell Realistic Stories:  You don’t want your audience to think you made the story up or that it’s exaggerated. Provide enough appropriate detail so that your audience can believe what you’re telling them is not only true, but its possible, likely, or directly relevant to them.

Tell Stories with   Cl early Described Characters:  Make sure your audience knows who the people are and why they matter to the story.

Be Sure to Have a Conflict:  Stories don’t need to be complicated or extraordinary to be good. But they should have a conflict (which leads to the purpose for telling the story.) There must always be some issue that needs to be resolved.

Don’t Forget the Resolution:  When you start a story of any kind, make sure that you let your audience know how it turned out.

Tell Only Relevant Stories:  Avoid getting sidetracked or on a tangent. All stories should have a clear purpose and should lead the audience towards your conclusions and arguments.

Perhaps the single greatest complaint in the history of presentations is that PowerPoint slides have too much text. Use your slide deck platform to create visually stunning, supportive visuals. Visuals should always complement (not distract or supersede) a presentation’s message. But images are almost always better than text when on the screen.

Be Simple:  Make slide designs simple. As Leonardo da Vinci famously said: simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. White background with black text is a great choice. Avoid fancy or distracting backgrounds or other visual noise. Keep the design simple, giving focus to the key elements.

Be Clear:  Be sure that your images or graphics have a clear purpose. If you’re showing data in chart or graph, explain the graph. Don’t talk about something else while hoping your audience will read all the numbers and draw conclusions. Point them to what they should learn from the graph.

Use Minimal (if any) Text:  People don’t remember text very well and they don’t remember what they hear very well…unless there’s a picture attached to what they hear. Use pictures to supplement and enhance what you are saying. Avoid as much text as is possible. Oftentimes, it’s better on a slide to not use any text at all–just give the audience a picture that supports what you are saying.

Only Use Relevant of Images:  While this may seem obvious, may novice presenters like to include clipart or other non-essential images simply to “pretty up” the presentation. Inserting images just to insert images is not only distracting, it’s tacky. Make all images worthwhile to your audience. If there is absolutely nothing interesting to show your audience when talking about something (that would be rare), use a blank slide. But don’t put in louse images.

Create Effective Charts, Graphs, and Animations:  Make sure the graphs are readable for everyone in the audience. Use large text and clearly understandable colors, sizes, and so forth. Always be sure to talk about visualized data on the screen. Don’t expect your audience to have the patience (especially while you are speaking about something else) to read or interpret the data on their own.

Make Visuals Readable:  Whatever your visual is, be sure it’s big enough for your audience to interpret it without trouble. No small data points, no pixelated graphics or photos, no tiny lines on graphs.

Color Scheme:  Keep colors simple and minimal. Use black text in most cases on a white background. Make sure contrast is always high. Be careful of yellows and oranges as they are often hard to read and they don’t project well on a screen.

Choose Good Typefaces:  The font you choose matters. It gives the entire document a personality. Make sure all fonts are readable (no script or crazy decorative fonts) and big. Avoid default fonts like Calibri or Times New Roman and definitely avoid cliche fonts like Comic Sans and Papyrus.

Delivery is about the way you look as an individual to an audience. It’s about you being articulate, clear, confident, approachable, and everything else. If you content is awesome but your delivery is bad, the presentation won’t have the effect you want.

Make Eye Contact:  Look at people in the eyes. Look all around the room–don’t get stuck looking at the same person or group of people more than everyone else in the room.

Smile and Show Enthusiasm:  Practice so that you’re less nervous and present with a smile and/or enthusiasm about what you’re talking about. No monotone voices, no bored expressions.

Move Naturally:  Avoid unnatural nervous ticks, like swaying, shifting hips, playing with hair, pacing, playing with clothing, etc. Most people have some weird habit when presenting in front of people. Learn what yours is and stop doing it.

Project a Loud, Articulate Voice:  Make sure everyone in the audience can hear you. No quiet talking or trailing off. Avoid filler words like “um” or “like” or “uh.”

Change Vocal Intonation:  Move your voice higher and lower. Act as if you would talking to a friend. Be excited, engaged, and change the sound of your voice so that it does become monotonous.

Have Good Posture:  Show confidence and professionalism by stranding straight, facing the audience. Don’t look at the computer screen, don’t lean on a table, don’t slouch, don’t put your hands in your pocket.

Exhibit Confidence:  Easier said than done, right? Just be sure to talk slowly (so you don’t seem nervous), smile, take deep breaths, and be passionate. When you look nervous, your credibility drops.

Speak Slowly:  Many nervous or excited speakers get going to fast. Speak at a slow pace so that your audience can process what you are saying, especially when you’re talking about complex subjects or you’re explaining research or data.

Dress Appropriately:  Know what your audience will be wearing and dress at a level just up from them. Know if the situation requires formality or not. Avoid distracting or revealing clothing. Women, you must be especially careful with this as revealing or low-cut clothing can be more distracting on an audience than typical business clothing for men.

Show Poise:  Things don’t always go well. You might forget something or your PowerPoint may not work or you may trip on a cord. Just relax and show poise. If you’re calm, your audience will be calm with you. If you freak out, your audience will get really uncomfortable and your credibility will be shot.

Team Interplay

If you’re presenting with a team of people, there are a few extra delivery considerations.

Introduce All Presenters:  Make sure the audience knows everyone participating in the presentation. Describe their role to the audience so that there’s no confusion.   Interact and Engage with Each Other:  While presenting, talk about each other and let the audience know throughout that you worked together. Don’t hesitate to use each other’s names and say things like “Thanks, Mike, for the details on….” and “As Tiffany just mentioned…” Avoid just dividing up the time of the presentation by presenters (don’t just say, “you take the first five minutes, I’ll do the next five, and you conclude.”) Rather, go back and forth between the content of the presentation.

Have Clear Roles & Responsibilities:  Make sure you each have a valuable part to play in the presentation. If it’s awkward or your have too many people, consider removing people without clear roles from the presentation. When you’re not speaking, be sure to be out of the way of other speakers.

Utilize Each Other’s Strengths:  Know what each person is good at or most knowledgeable in and let them present that. Sometimes, if a person on a team isn’t great at presenting, but they’re good at designing or organizing, they may play a different role in the team presentation.

Always have a conclusion. There’s an old mantra in public speaking: Tell them what you’re going to tell them (introduction forecast). Then tell them (middle). Then tell them what you just told them (conclusion summary). Summarize Presentation:  Remind your audience of the key points and conclusions drawn. Wrap up any loose ends and make your point clear.

Have a Clear and Obvious End:  There’s nothing more awkward for you or your audience than them not knowing when to clap. Be sure you lead towards an end with a clear finishing statement. Avoid just stopping and saying things like, “K, that’s it. Any questions?”

Finish Strong:  Leave the audience with something to think about. Maybe tell a final story or give a powerful statistic or quote. Regardless, don’t just end without thinking through a really strong, pithy statement to leave your audience with.

• ← The Periodic Table of Punctuation
• How to Write a Creative Brief →

Shop for your perfect poster print or digital download at our online store!

Rubric Best Practices, Examples, and Templates

A rubric is a scoring tool that identifies the different criteria relevant to an assignment, assessment, or learning outcome and states the possible levels of achievement in a specific, clear, and objective way. Use rubrics to assess project-based student work including essays, group projects, creative endeavors, and oral presentations.

Rubrics can help instructors communicate expectations to students and assess student work fairly, consistently and efficiently. Rubrics can provide students with informative feedback on their strengths and weaknesses so that they can reflect on their performance and work on areas that need improvement.

How to Get Started

Best practices, moodle how-to guides.

• Workshop Recording (Fall 2022)
• Workshop Registration

Step 1: Analyze the assignment

The first step in the rubric creation process is to analyze the assignment or assessment for which you are creating a rubric. To do this, consider the following questions:

• What is the purpose of the assignment and your feedback? What do you want students to demonstrate through the completion of this assignment (i.e. what are the learning objectives measured by it)? Is it a summative assessment, or will students use the feedback to create an improved product?
• Does the assignment break down into different or smaller tasks? Are these tasks equally important as the main assignment?
• What would an “excellent” assignment look like? An “acceptable” assignment? One that still needs major work?
• How detailed do you want the feedback you give students to be? Do you want/need to give them a grade?

Step 2: Decide what kind of rubric you will use

Types of rubrics: holistic, analytic/descriptive, single-point

Holistic Rubric. A holistic rubric includes all the criteria (such as clarity, organization, mechanics, etc.) to be considered together and included in a single evaluation. With a holistic rubric, the rater or grader assigns a single score based on an overall judgment of the student’s work, using descriptions of each performance level to assign the score.

Advantages of holistic rubrics:

• Can p lace an emphasis on what learners can demonstrate rather than what they cannot
• Save grader time by minimizing the number of evaluations to be made for each student
• Can be used consistently across raters, provided they have all been trained

Disadvantages of holistic rubrics:

• Provide less specific feedback than analytic/descriptive rubrics
• Can be difficult to choose a score when a student’s work is at varying levels across the criteria
• Any weighting of c riteria cannot be indicated in the rubric

Analytic/Descriptive Rubric . An analytic or descriptive rubric often takes the form of a table with the criteria listed in the left column and with levels of performance listed across the top row. Each cell contains a description of what the specified criterion looks like at a given level of performance. Each of the criteria is scored individually.

Advantages of analytic rubrics:

• Provide detailed feedback on areas of strength or weakness
• Each criterion can be weighted to reflect its relative importance

Disadvantages of analytic rubrics:

• More time-consuming to create and use than a holistic rubric
• May not be used consistently across raters unless the cells are well defined
• May result in giving less personalized feedback

Single-Point Rubric . A single-point rubric is breaks down the components of an assignment into different criteria, but instead of describing different levels of performance, only the “proficient” level is described. Feedback space is provided for instructors to give individualized comments to help students improve and/or show where they excelled beyond the proficiency descriptors.

Advantages of single-point rubrics:

• Easier to create than an analytic/descriptive rubric
• Perhaps more likely that students will read the descriptors
• Areas of concern and excellence are open-ended
• May removes a focus on the grade/points
• May increase student creativity in project-based assignments

Disadvantage of analytic rubrics: Requires more work for instructors writing feedback

Step 3 (Optional): Look for templates and examples.

You might Google, “Rubric for persuasive essay at the college level” and see if there are any publicly available examples to start from. Ask your colleagues if they have used a rubric for a similar assignment. Some examples are also available at the end of this article. These rubrics can be a great starting point for you, but consider steps 3, 4, and 5 below to ensure that the rubric matches your assignment description, learning objectives and expectations.

Step 4: Define the assignment criteria

Make a list of the knowledge and skills are you measuring with the assignment/assessment Refer to your stated learning objectives, the assignment instructions, past examples of student work, etc. for help.

  Helpful strategies for defining grading criteria:

• Collaborate with co-instructors, teaching assistants, and other colleagues
• Brainstorm and discuss with students
• Can they be observed and measured?
• Are they important and essential?
• Are they distinct from other criteria?
• Are they phrased in precise, unambiguous language?
• Revise the criteria as needed
• Consider whether some are more important than others, and how you will weight them.

Step 5: Design the rating scale

Most ratings scales include between 3 and 5 levels. Consider the following questions when designing your rating scale:

• Given what students are able to demonstrate in this assignment/assessment, what are the possible levels of achievement?
• How many levels would you like to include (more levels means more detailed descriptions)
• Will you use numbers and/or descriptive labels for each level of performance? (for example 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and/or Exceeds expectations, Accomplished, Proficient, Developing, Beginning, etc.)
• Don’t use too many columns, and recognize that some criteria can have more columns that others . The rubric needs to be comprehensible and organized. Pick the right amount of columns so that the criteria flow logically and naturally across levels.

Step 6: Write descriptions for each level of the rating scale

Artificial Intelligence tools like Chat GPT have proven to be useful tools for creating a rubric. You will want to engineer your prompt that you provide the AI assistant to ensure you get what you want. For example, you might provide the assignment description, the criteria you feel are important, and the number of levels of performance you want in your prompt. Use the results as a starting point, and adjust the descriptions as needed.

Building a rubric from scratch

For a single-point rubric , describe what would be considered “proficient,” i.e. B-level work, and provide that description. You might also include suggestions for students outside of the actual rubric about how they might surpass proficient-level work.

For analytic and holistic rubrics , c reate statements of expected performance at each level of the rubric.

• Consider what descriptor is appropriate for each criteria, e.g., presence vs absence, complete vs incomplete, many vs none, major vs minor, consistent vs inconsistent, always vs never. If you have an indicator described in one level, it will need to be described in each level.
• You might start with the top/exemplary level. What does it look like when a student has achieved excellence for each/every criterion? Then, look at the “bottom” level. What does it look like when a student has not achieved the learning goals in any way? Then, complete the in-between levels.
• For an analytic rubric , do this for each particular criterion of the rubric so that every cell in the table is filled. These descriptions help students understand your expectations and their performance in regard to those expectations.

Well-written descriptions:

• Describe observable and measurable behavior
• Use parallel language across the scale
• Indicate the degree to which the standards are met

Step 7: Create your rubric

Create your rubric in a table or spreadsheet in Word, Google Docs, Sheets, etc., and then transfer it by typing it into Moodle. You can also use online tools to create the rubric, but you will still have to type the criteria, indicators, levels, etc., into Moodle. Rubric creators: Rubistar , iRubric

Step 8: Pilot-test your rubric

Prior to implementing your rubric on a live course, obtain feedback from:

• Teacher assistants

Try out your new rubric on a sample of student work. After you pilot-test your rubric, analyze the results to consider its effectiveness and revise accordingly.

• Limit the rubric to a single page for reading and grading ease
• Use parallel language . Use similar language and syntax/wording from column to column. Make sure that the rubric can be easily read from left to right or vice versa.
• Use student-friendly language . Make sure the language is learning-level appropriate. If you use academic language or concepts, you will need to teach those concepts.
• Share and discuss the rubric with your students . Students should understand that the rubric is there to help them learn, reflect, and self-assess. If students use a rubric, they will understand the expectations and their relevance to learning.
• Consider scalability and reusability of rubrics. Create rubric templates that you can alter as needed for multiple assignments.
• Maximize the descriptiveness of your language. Avoid words like “good” and “excellent.” For example, instead of saying, “uses excellent sources,” you might describe what makes a resource excellent so that students will know. You might also consider reducing the reliance on quantity, such as a number of allowable misspelled words. Focus instead, for example, on how distracting any spelling errors are.

Example of an analytic rubric for a final paper

Example of a holistic rubric for a final paper, single-point rubric, more examples:.

• Single Point Rubric Template ( variation )
• Analytic Rubric Template make a copy to edit
• A Rubric for Rubrics
• Bank of Online Discussion Rubrics in different formats
• Mathematical Presentations Descriptive Rubric
• Math Proof Assessment Rubric
• Kansas State Sample Rubrics
• Design Single Point Rubric

Technology Tools: Rubrics in Moodle

• Moodle Docs: Rubrics
• Moodle Docs: Grading Guide (use for single-point rubrics)

Tools with rubrics (other than Moodle)

• Google Assignments
• Turnitin Assignments: Rubric or Grading Form

Other resources

• DePaul University (n.d.). Rubrics .
• Gonzalez, J. (2014). Know your terms: Holistic, Analytic, and Single-Point Rubrics . Cult of Pedagogy.
• Goodrich, H. (1996). Understanding rubrics . Teaching for Authentic Student Performance, 54 (4), 14-17. Retrieved from   
• Miller, A. (2012). Tame the beast: tips for designing and using rubrics.
• Ragupathi, K., Lee, A. (2020). Beyond Fairness and Consistency in Grading: The Role of Rubrics in Higher Education. In: Sanger, C., Gleason, N. (eds) Diversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.

Lynn University

Student research symposium.

• Symposium Overview
• Submission Eligibility & Requirements
• Evaluation Rubrics
• Previous Winners and Presenters
• Student Research Symposium Pamphlet

Judges use the rubrics below to assess the projects and choose the winners. Faculty advisors should review the rubrics with students.

Oral Presentation Evaluation Rubric

Please provide a number score (up to 5 points) for each of the categories below according to the presenter's proficiency in each area.

Poster Presentation Evaluation Rubric

Please provide a number score (up to 6 points) for each category below according to the presenter's proficiency in each area.

The following sections apply only to poster presentations of original empirical research.

Research Paper/Project Evaluation Rubric

• Research Paper - Assessment Rubric PDF

• << Previous: Submission Eligibility & Requirements
• Next: Previous Winners and Presenters >>
• Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 11:22 AM
• URL: https://lynn-library.libguides.com/symposium