|
Level of Achievement: 1
Below Expectations |
Level of Achievement: 2
Meets Expectations |
Level of Achievement: 3
Exceeds
Expectations |
| Organization |
Audience has difficulty following presentation because of some abrupt jumps; some of the main points and conclusion are unclear. |
Satisfactory organization; clear introduction; main points are well stated, even if some transitions are somewhat sudden; clear conclusion. |
Superb organization; clear introduction; main points well stated and argued, with each leading to the next point of the talk; clear summary and conclusion. |
| Mechanics |
Boring slides; numerous mistakes; no real effort made into creating a truly effective presentation; poor participation of team members. |
Generally good set of slides; conveys the main points well. Adequate participation of team members. |
Very creative slides; carefully thought out to bring out both the main points as well as the subtle issues while keeping the audience interested. Excellent participation of team members. |
| Delivery |
Low voice, occasionally inaudible; some distracting filler words and
gestures; pronunciation
not always clear. |
Clear voice, generally effective delivery; minimal distracting gestures, but somewhat monotone. |
Natural, confident delivery that does not just convey the message but enhances it; excellent use of volume and pace. |
| Relating to audience |
Occasional eye contact with audience but
mostly reads the presentation;
some awareness
of a least a portion of the audience; only brief
responses to questions. |
Generally aware of the audience reactions; maintains good eye contact when speaking and when answering questions. |
Keeps the audience engaged throughout the presentation; modifies material on-the-fly based on audience questions and comments; keenly aware of audience reactions. |
|
Level of Achievement: 1
Below Expectations |
Level of Achievement: 2
Meets Expectations |
Level of Achievement: 3
Exceeds
Expectations |
| Style |
Text rambles, key points are not organized,
spelling/ grammar errors present throughout more than 1/3 of paper; style is inappropriate for audience, prescribed format is not followed. |
Articulates ideas; one or two grammar/ spelling errors per page; prescribed format is followed. |
Articulates ideas clearly and concisely, presented neatly and professionally, grammar and spelling are correct, uses good professional style and conforms to prescribed format. |
| Organization |
Material generally well organized, but paragraphs combine multiple thoughts or section/
subsections are not identified clearly. |
Organizes material in a logical sequence to enhance reader's comprehension (paragraph structure, subheadings, etc.). |
Organizes material in a logical sequence to enhance reader's comprehension (paragraph structure, subheadings, etc.). |
Relationshio of Graphics/
Figures/
Tables to written material
|
Rarely includes GTF even when required to do so. Does not recognize when a GTF is appropriate to organize numbers and/or facts to enhance reader understanding. |
Includes any required GTF. Recognizes other opportunities to organize numbers/facts in GTF form which mimic similar organizations shown in course work (present and previous). Explicitly discusses the GTF significance in surrounding text. |
All level 2 criteria. Shows evidence of independent organization of numbers/facts in GTF form beyond any previously seen in engineering coursework. |
Formatting of Graphics/
Tables/
Figures |
TF are sometimes difficult to read. Labels/legends/titles are missing and/or inappropriate. |
GTF are easy to read. GTF have appropriate labels and legends. GTF have appropriate titles referring to relevant parts of the graphic (axes, legends, column/row heading, etc.) |
All level 2 criteria. In addition, the graphics are visually appealing. |
| References |
Few or no references.References poorly documented if present. |
Sufficient authoritative references present. Documentation of references does not conform to any particular standard. Most references can be traced using the information given. |
Sufficient authoritative references present.
All references given in IEEE reference format, or some other standard referencing scheme. All references can be traced using the information given. |
| Computer Code Comments |
Comments missing or inadequate for personal use by the original programmer or by another user of the code. |
Comments present. Generally well written, but missed some opportunity to provide comments of benefit to subsequent users. |
Well commented code. |
