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




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