Team presentations are evaluated on a variety of aspects of the presentation including content, style, graphics, and teamwork.
 

Presentation Component	Unacceptable 0 Points	Acceptable 1 Point	Good 2 Points	Excellent 3 Points
Overview: introduction of presenters, case or problem  and background described, agenda described	no introduction or overview, background or agenda	introduction of presenters but awkward, sketchy or unclear overview/agenda and background	confident and fluent introduction; clear overview/agenda and background, but could be more complete or polished	confident introduction of roles and contribution; clear purpose, overview, and agenda; relevant & clear background
Style: use effective verbal and nonverbal communication skills (e.g., voice volume, inflection, eye contact, etc.)	poor style (long pauses, reading speech, "Umm..." and other mannerisms, poor eye contact, monotone, etc.)	Either fluent delivery but reading, or awkward delivery but spontaneous	generally good delivery and spontaneity but could improve	Excellent style involving matching verbal and nonverbal style, good projection with inflection, spontaneous speaking
Vocabulary: appropriate and fluent use of terms and concepts	little or no attempt to include terms, concepts, authors	use of terms but not well related, sporadic, misused or mispronounced	good use of terms but still uses jargon or forces or is awkward with use of terms	fluent vocabulary and pronunciation without pretention
Application: appropriate and insightful application of procedures and practices	little or no inclusion of techniques, application, or practices	inaccurate or incomplete use of techniques	generally good application, but lack polish, fluency, or originality	strong application with good fit, rationale, fluency, and originality
Coverage: thorough and balanced in treatment of topic	very incomplete, significant gaps, or biased treatment of topic	either thorough but biased, or incomplete and balanced	generally thorough and balanced but awkward, needs more evidence, or better sequencing	thorough coverage of topic per assignment with balanced treatment of perspectives
Rationale: explains reasoning and provides evidence	little or no reasoning, explanation, or evidence provided	reasoning and evidence presented but not well organized or poor sources	good logical reasoning and evidence, but not integrated	logical reasoning integrated with authoritative references on key points
Graphics: attractive & balanced layout, legible font	no graphics (may be appropriate in some cases)	graphics present but poor quality (illegible, inconsistent, , etc.)	well done graphics but too much or too little, and not on key points	well-designed and attractive graphics that simplify or summarize key ideas; original graphics
Team Roles: team members have equivalent roles	unclear team roles	clear team roles but unequal contribution	clear roles, equal contribution	clear roles, balanced contribution, good transition between presenters, cross reference each other
Discussion: team is prepared to facilitate discussion and is receptive to feedback	little or no discussion	discussion but without clear organization or purpose	prepared discussion questions	prepared questions on key areas, and responsive to and elicit participant reaction and questions
Reflection: team can identify what it would do differently to improve	little or no reflection	ask for feedback; some defensiveness	ask for feedback and clarify responses; generally nondefensive	request feedback, clarify responses and link to performance changes; positive & curious