iRubric: Group Presentations U546 rubric

The response to this case for student population is presented with compelling evidence to support conclusions. The group clearly articulates how the response contributes toward building a positive climate on campus-- which stakeholders were taken into consideration in the response and HOW. If stakeholders were not considered, explanation of WHY is offered. The response is doable based on the information that is obtained.

The response for student population is presented with evidence to support conclusions, but more evidence is needed in some areas. The group articulates how the response contributes toward building a positive climate on campus--stakeholders were taken into consideration in the response and HOW (occasionally vague). If stakeholders were not considered, explanation of why is offered. The response is mostly doable.

The response for student population is presented--more evidence is needed in several areas. The group articulates how the response contributes toward building a positive climate on campus while indicating which stakeholders were taken into consideration--the how part is often vague. If stakeholders were not considered, explanation of why is sometimes offered. The response is somewhat unrealistic .

The response to this case for student population is presented with no evidence to support conclusions. If stakeholders were not considered, explanation of why is not offered. The response is unrealistic based on the information that is obtained.

The team members masterfully present the issue particular student population is facing, context (IU), argument for response. A stakeholder could review the handout and have a clear understanding about the issue and proposed action plan. Handout is well designed, creative, and proofread.

The team members present the issue particular student population is facing, context (IU), and argument for response. One aspect of the handout needs to be more clearly outlined. A stakeholder reviewing the handout who is not present at the presentation may not have a very clear understanding of the issue based on the handout. Handout could use a little more proofreading.

The team members present the issue particular student population is facing, context (IU), and argument for response. More than one aspect of the handout needs to be more clearly outlined. A stakeholder would be unclear about the issue without attending the presentation. Handout includes many grammatical errors.

The team members present the issue particular student population is facing, context (IU), and argument for response. The handout does not adequately address the aforementioned points. A stakeholder would be unclear about the issue without attending the presentation. Handout needs major proofreading.

Delivery techniques make the presentation compelling, and speaker(s) appears(s) polished and confident. Speakers cooperate well by gracefully transitioning between speakers.
Presentation is well timed; no adjustments in timing appear needed. Presentation leads to critical questions from peers because team members prepared questions for engagement ahead of time.

Delivery techniques make the presentation interesting, and speaker(s) appear(s) comfortable. Speakers cooperate well with each other; clear transitions between speakers. Presentation is well timed (minor adjustments could be included) and adjustments are handled smoothly. Presentation leads to some questions from peers.

Delivery techniques make the presentation understandable, and speaker(s) appears tentative. Speakers do not appear to cooperate with each other.
Some sections are not well timed. Presentation does not lead to questions or discussion with peers. Peers offer minimal questions.

Delivery techniques detract from the understandability of the presentation, and speaker(s) appear uncomfortable. Speakers do not cooperate with each other. Presentation segments are ill timed. Presenters do not prepare the class for discussion. Peers do not offer points for discussion.