sample oral presentation marking criteria

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

•  All topics A-Z
•  Grammar
•  Vocabulary
•  Speaking
•  Reading
•  Listening
•  Writing
•  Pronunciation
•  Virtual Classroom
• Worksheets by season
•  600 Creative Writing Prompts
•  Warmers, fillers & ice-breakers
•  Coloring pages to print
•  Flashcards
•  Classroom management worksheets
•  Emergency worksheets
•  Revision worksheets
• Resources we recommend
• Copyright 2007-2021 пїЅ
• Submit a worksheet
• Mobile version

Browser does not support script.

• Departments and Institutes
• Research centres and groups
• Chair's Blog: Summer Term 2022
• Staff wellbeing

Oral presentations

Oral assessments offer teachers the opportunity to assess the structure and content of a presentation as well as students’ capacity to answer any subsequent probing questions. They can be formatted as individual presentations or small-group presentations; they can be done face-to-face or online, and they can be given behind closed doors or in front of peers. The most common format involves one or two students presenting during class time with a follow-up question and answer session. Because of logistics and the demands of the curriculum, oral presentations tend to be quite short – perhaps 10 minutes for an undergraduate and 15-20 minutes for a postgraduate. Oral presentations are often used in a formative capacity but they can also be used as summative assessments. The focus of this form of assessment is not on students’ capacity to find relevant information, sources and literature but on their capacity to package such materials into a logically coherent exposition.

Advantages of oral presentations

• Allows for probing questions that test underlying assumptions.
• Quick to mark – immediate feedback is possible.
• Allow students to demonstrate a logical flow/development of an idea.
• Presentation skills are valued by employers.
• Students are familiar with this assessment method.

Challenges of oral presentations

Can be stressful for some students.

Non-native speakers may be at a disadvantage.

Can be time-consuming.

Limited scope for inter-rater checks.

A danger that ‘good speakers’ get good marks.

How students might experience oral presentations

Students are often familiar with giving oral presentations and many will have done so in other courses. However, they may focus too much on certain aspects to the detriment of others. For example, some students may be overly concerned with the idea of standing up in front of their peers and may forget that their focus should be on offering a clear narrative. Other students may focus on the style of their presentation and overlook the importance of substance. Others yet may focus on what they have to say without considering the importance of an oral presentation being primarily for the benefit of the audience. The use of PowerPoint in particular should be addressed by teachers beforehand, so that students are aware that this should be a tool for supporting their presentation rather than the presentation in itself. Most oral presentations are followed by a question and answer phase – sometimes the questions will come from peers, sometimes they will come from teachers, and sometimes they will come from both. It is good practice to let students know about the format of the questions – especially if their capacity to answer them is part of the marking criteria.

Reliability, validity, fairness and inclusivity of oral presentations

Oral assessments are often marked in situ and this means that the process for allocating marks needs to be reliable, valid and fair when used under great time pressure. Through having a clearly defined marking structure with a set of pre-established, and shared, criteria, students should be aware of what they need to do to access the highest possible marks. Precise marking criteria help teachers to focus on the intended learning outcomes rather than presentational style. During oral presentations content validity is addressed through having marking criteria that focus on the quality of the points raised in the presentation itself and construct validity is addressed during the question and answer phase when the presenter is assessed for their capacity to comment on underpinning literature, theories and/or principles. One of the issues in having peer questions at the end of an oral presentation is that the teacher has very little control over what will be asked. This does not mean that such questions are not legitimate – only that teachers need to carefully consider how they mark the answers to such questions. In order to ensure equality of opportunity, teachers should ask their own questions after any peer questions, using them to fill any gaps and offer the presenter a chance to address any areas of the marking criteria that have not yet been covered. Oral presentation may challenge students with less proficiency in spoken English, and criteria should be scrutinised to support their achievement.

How to maintain and ensure rigour in oral presentations

Assessment rigour for oral presentations includes the teacher’s capacity to assess a range of presentation topics, formats and styles with an equal level of scrutiny.  Teachers should therefore develop marking criteria that focus on a student’s ability to take complex issues and present them in a clear and relatable manner rather than focus on the content covered. Throughout this whole process teachers should be involved in a form of constant reflexive scrutiny – examining if they feel that they are applying marking criteria fairly across all students. As oral presentations are ephemeral, consider how the moderator and/or external examiner will evaluate the assessment process. Can a moderator ‘double mark’ a percentage of presentations? Is there a need (or would it be helpful) to record the presentations?

How to limit possible misconduct in oral presentations

The opportunities for academic misconduct are quite low in an oral presentation – especially during the question and answer phase. If written resources are expected to be produced as part of the assessment (handouts, bibliographies, PowerPoint slides etc.) then guidance on citing and referencing should be given and marking criteria may offer marks for appropriate use of such literature. In guiding students to avoid using written scripts (except where it is deemed necessary from an inclusivity perspective) teachers will steer them aware from the possibility of reading out someone else’s thoughts as their own. Instead, students should be encouraged to use techniques such as limited cue cards to structure their presentation. The questions posed by the teacher at the end of the presentation are also a possible check on misconduct and will allow the teacher to see if the student actually knows about the content they are presenting or if they have merely memorised someone else’s words.

LSE examples

MA498 Dissertation in Mathematics

PB202 Developmental Psychology

ST312 Applied Statistics Project

Further resources

https://twp.duke.edu/sites/twp.duke.edu/files/file-attachments/oral-presentation-handout.original.pdf

Langan, A.M., Shuker, D.M., Cullen, W.R., Penney, D., Preziosi, R.F. and Wheater, C.P. (2008) Relationships between student characteristics and self‐, peer and tutor evaluations of oral presentations.  Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 33(2): 179-190.

Dunbar, N.E., Brooks, C.F. and Kubicka-Miller, T. (2006) Oral communication skills in higher education: Using a performance-based evaluation rubric to assess communication skills.  Innovative Higher Education , 31(2): 115.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRaPmO6TlaM

https://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/calendar/courseGuides/PB/2020_PB202.htm

Implementing this method at LSE

If you’re considering using oral presentations as an assessment,  this resource  offers more specific information, pedagogic and practical, about implementing the method at LSE. This resource is password protected to LSE staff.

Back to Assessment methods

Back to Toolkit Main page

Contact your Eden Centre departmental adviser

If you have any suggestions for future Toolkit development, get in touch using our email below!

Email: [email protected].

ESL Presentation Rubric

• Resources for Teachers
• Pronunciation & Conversation
• Writing Skills
• Reading Comprehension
• Business English
• TESOL Diploma, Trinity College London
• M.A., Music Performance, Cologne University of Music
• B.A., Vocal Performance, Eastman School of Music

In-class presentations are a great way to encourage a number of English communicative skills in a realistic task that provides students not only help with their English skills but prepares them in a broader way for future education and work situations. Grading these presentations can be tricky, as there are many elements such as key presentation phrases beyond simple grammar and structure, pronunciation and so on that make a good presentation. This ESL presentation rubric can help you provide valuable feedback to your students and has been created with English learners in mind. Skills included in this rubric include  stress and intonation , appropriate linking language, body language , fluency, as well as standard grammar structures.

• ESL Essay Writing Rubric
• How to Teach Essay Writing
• How to Teach Pronunciation
• Top Vocabulary Building Books
• Dear Abby Lesson Plan
• Writing English Drama Scripts in ESL Class
• Learn How to Use YouTube in the ESL Classroom
• Standard Lesson Plan Format for ESL Teachers
• Top Lesson Plans for ESL and EFL
• How to Successfully Teach English One-to-One
• CALL Use in the ESL/EFL Classroom
• Beginning Level Curriculum for ESL Classes
• Process Writing
• Dialogue Activities for ESL Students
• Understand Your Class With This Fun Survey for ESL/EFL Learners
• 5 Top English Learner Dictionaries

IBDP English B

Website by David Ripley & Joseph O'Callaghan

Updated 21 April 2024

InThinking Subject Sites

Subscription websites for IB teachers & their classes

Find out more

• thinkib.net
• IBDP Biology
• IBDP Business Management
• IBDP Chemistry
• IBDP Economics
• IBDP English A Literature
• IBDP English A: Language & Literature
• IBDP Environmental Systems & Societies
• IBDP French B
• IBDP Geography
• IBDP German A: Language & Literature
• IBDP History
• IBDP Maths: Analysis & Approaches
• IBDP Maths: Applications & Interpretation
• IBDP Physics
• IBDP Psychology
• IBDP Spanish A
• IBDP Spanish Ab Initio
• IBDP Spanish B
• IBDP Visual Arts
• IBMYP English Language & Literature
• IBMYP Resources
• IBMYP Spanish Language Acquisition
• IB Career-related Programme
• IB School Leadership

Disclaimer : InThinking subject sites are neither endorsed by nor connected with the International Baccalaureate Organisation.

InThinking Subject Sites for IB Teachers and their Classes

Supporting ib educators.

• Comprehensive help & advice on teaching the IB diploma.
• Written by experts with vast subject knowledge.
• Innovative ideas on ATL & pedagogy.
• Detailed guidance on all aspects of assessment.

Developing great materials

• More than 14 million words across 24 sites.
• Masses of ready-to-go resources for the classroom.
• Dynamic links to current affairs & real world issues.
• Updates every week 52 weeks a year.

Integrating student access

• Give your students direct access to relevant site pages.
• Single student login for all of your school’s subscriptions.
• Create reading, writing, discussion, and quiz tasks.
• Monitor student progress & collate in online gradebook.

Meeting schools' needs

• Global reach with more than 200,000 users worldwide.
• Use our materials to create compelling unit plans.
• Save time & effort which you can reinvest elsewhere.
• Consistently good feedback from subscribers.

For information about pricing, click here

Download brochure

See what users are saying about our Subject Sites:

Find out more about our Student Access feature:

• Oral IA Criteria, unpacked
• Orals: what's expected?

This page provides an overall introduction to the Oral IA Criteria used for marking.

Each individual criterion is dealt with in detail in the subordinate pages:

• Criterion A  
• Criterion B1  
• Criterion B2  
• Criterion C  

The analysis of each criterion is organised by bullet-point, in order to make the range of values as clear as possible. Note that:

• the key operative descriptive terms are in red
• I have added comments on the application of each set of descriptors, in blue
• indicators are suggested - specific features of performance which may help to decide on mark bands.

HL and SL distinctions

The structure of the criteria is the same for both levels, but the wording and the implied values are slightly different in some aspects. Note the following:

Criterion A: Language ... there is mainly a 'one-step' difference between HL and SL - for example, under 'Grammar range', the wording of the SL 10-12 mark-band is the same as the HL 7-9 mark-band.

Criterion B1 Message - visual stimulus / literarty extract ... is largely the same at both levels, although there is some re-phrasing to respond to the fact that the task is different at each level (i.e. SL is based on a visual stimulus, HL on a literary extract). This means that the intellectual skills implied are slightly different. Also, reference to 'the target culture' is required at SL, but not at HL.

Criterion B2: Message - conversation ... the wording is identical at both levels.

Criterion C: Interactive skills—communication ... the wording is identical at both levels.

One-sheet Criteria

I have laid out the Criteria on a single sheet each for HL and SL, for ease of use during marking. Here they are...

Applying the Criteria

The Individual Interview has three sections: Part 1: Presentation, Part 2: Follow-up discussion and Part 3: General discussion. How should the criteria be applied in the three Parts?

Criterion A: Language ... should be applied throughout, to the language used in all three Parts.

Criterion B1 Message - visual stimulus / literary extract ... should only be applied to the Part 1 Presentation.

This means that the qualities of 'relevance' and 'development', which appear in both Criteria B1 and B2, could be marked differently if the performance is different in Parts 2 and 3. To illustrate, a student might do a good presentation and so receive a high mark for 'relevance' and 'development' under Crit.B1 ... but then deliver poorly explained ideas in Parts 2 & 3, and thus receive a lower mark for 'relevance' and 'development' under Crit.B2.

Criterion B2: Message - conversation ... should only be applied to Parts 2 & 3.

Criterion C: Interactive skills—communication ... should only be applied to Parts 2 & 3.

Remember that it is a basic principle of IB Criteria marking that each criterion should be considered as far as possible in isolation from the others - the mark in one should not influence the mark in another. To illustrate, a student could receive a low mark for language because of repeated flaws, but then receive a high mark for Criteria B1 & B2 because the ideas (once you've deciphered the faulty language) turn out to be very good.

Overlap in Crits.B1, B2 and C

There is some overlap in the wording of the three criteria concerned with message: particularly, with how students are expected to handle ideas. We have "observations and opinions" (crit.B1) ... "personal interpretations and/or attempts to engage" (B2) ... and "independent contributions" (C). These all sort of refer to the same idea: i.e. something like 'contributing imaginative ideas', rather than just summarising the obvious or predictable - but it is not completely clear what exact indicators are expected under the three criteria.

There is agreement among senior examiners about how these terms should be interpreted -

"observations and opinions" (Crit.B1) ... At HL - ideas which indicate thoughtful insight into the detailed wording of the extract: unfolding implied meaning in the extract. At SL - ideas which indicate thoughtful insight into what the image means: unfolding implied meaning in the image and explaining personal responses to the image's impact 

"personal interpretations and/or attempts to engage" (Crit.B2) ... ideas which are evidence of critical thinking about ideas which have emerged from the teacher's questions, or from the discussion of general ideas related to the literary text (HL) or the stimulus image (SL) - where "engage" means responding thoughtfully , even critically, to ideas suggested by the teacher.

"independent contributions" (Crit.C) ... ideas which respond actively to ideas within the questions of the teacher, most commonly by extending the subject through ideas which may be implicit but not explicit, or ideas which are loosely but creatively connected to the subject matter (which add something to the conversation)

Deciding on marks

To start with, notice that all of the criteria have a similar structure - each mark band has a 'headline descriptor' in bold (or overall definition of performance in that mark band), which is expanded with 'bullet points' (or more detailed definitions of aspects of that overall performance). For example:

Criterion A: Language

How successfully does the candidate command spoken language?  (Headline descriptor)

• To what extent is the vocabulary appropriate and varied?  (bullet point)

• To what extent are the grammatical structures varied?  (bullet point)

A marking procedure

There are no rigid rules about how the criteria should be used, but I would suggest that common good practice involves using the following procedure for each of the criteria in turn:

> Skim the headline descriptors and choose the one that fits best

This will suggest the likely mark band - although it is quite common to find yourself hovering between two headline descriptors, in which case you are going to have to do more checking of the bullet point descriptors in each.

> Check each of the bullet points under the chosen headline descriptor

Assess how well each of them fit to the student's performance.

• If they all fit pretty well - then fine, you're definitely in the right mark band.
• If, say, one of the descriptors doesn't fit too well, then check the equivalent bullet point in the mark band above or below, as seems appropriate - if that equivalent bullet point seems a better description, than that can be accomodated by awarding the top or bottom of the mark band, as appropriate.
• If the bullet points mostly don't fit well, then perhaps you're going to have to think of another mark band, or make a tricky compromise between two mark bands, by perhaps awarding the very top of one or the very bottom of the other

> Choose the mark within the mark band range 

There is no fixed guidance about whether the higher or lower marks within a mark band should be chosen - so trust yourself and award the mark which seems most fair. As a crude rule of thumb and to avoid grade inflation, it may be best to award the lower mark if all the bullet point descriptors fit quite well ... and award the higher mark(s) to the extent that one or more of the descriptors fit particularly positively .