USVI Public Records

Document text

ABRCMS Judging Rubric – Poster & Oral Presentations (Copyright © 2009. American Society for Microbiology/ABRCMS. All Rights Reserved.) SCORE HYPOTHESIS AND/OR STATEMENT OF PROBLEM METHODS AND CONTROLS/COMPARISON RESULTS CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK 5
A logical hypothesis/statement of problem was presented clearly.
Background information was relevant and summarized well. Connections to previous literature and broader issues were clear. • Goal of project was stated clearly and concisely; showed clear relevance beyond project. • Thorough explanation of why particular methods were chosen. • Clear discussion of controls or comparative groups; all appropriate controls or comparative groups were included. • Substantial amounts of high quality data were presented sufficient to address the hypothesis. • Presentation of data was clear, thorough, and logical. • Reasonable conclusions were given and strongly supported with evidence. • Conclusions were compared to hypothesis and their relevance in a wider context was discussed. 4 • A logical hypothesis/statement of problem was presented. • Background information was relevant, but connections were not clear. • Goal of project was stated clearly; showed relevance beyond project. • Good explanation of choice of methods • Clear discussion of controls or comparative groups; most controls or comparative groups were included. • Sufficient amounts of good data were presented to address the hypothesis. • Presentation of data was clear and logical. • Reasonable conclusions were given and supported with evidence. • Conclusions were compared to hypothesis, but their relevance was not discussed. 3 • A questionable hypothesis/ statement of problem was presented. • Background information was relevant, but connections were not made. • Goal of project was stated understandably. • Little comment on why the methods were chosen and others not chosen. • Adequate discussion of controls or comparative groups; some significant controls or comparative groups were lacking. • Adequate amounts of reasonably good data were presented to address the hypothesis. • Presentation of data was not entirely clear. • Reasonable conclusions were given. • Conclusions were not compared to the hypothesis and their relevance was not discussed. 2 • A questionable hypothesis/ statement of problem was presented and was not necessarily supported. • Some relevant background information was included, but not connected. • Goal of project was not clear. • No discussion of choice of methods. • Controls or comparative groups not adequately described; some appropriate controls or groups were missing. • Some data were lacking not fully sufficient to address the hypothesis. • Presentation of data was included, but unclear or difficult to comprehend. • Conclusions were given. • Little connection with the hypothesis was apparent. 1 • The hypothesis/statement of problem was inappropriate or was missing. • Little or no background information was included or connected. • Goal of project was not stated. • Methods section missing. • Serious lack of controls of discussion of controls. • Results are not yet available or reproducible. • Presentation of data was missing. • Conclusions were missing. • There was no connection with the hypothesis SCORE OVERALL PRESENTATION & HANDLING QUESTIONS POSTER BOARD OR POWERPOINT PRESENTATION 5 Student: • Demonstrates a very strong knowledge of the research project • Speaks clearly, naturally and with enthusiasm; makes eye contact • Comfortably uses visual aids to enhance presentation • Answers difficult questions clearly and succinctly • Presentation is consistently clear and logical • All expected components are present, clearly laid out, and easy to follow in the absence of presenter • The text is concise, legible, and consistently free of spelling or typographical errors; the background is unobtrusive • The figures and tables are appropriate and consistently labeled correctly • Photographs/tables/graphs improve understanding and enhance the visual appeal 4 Student: • Demonstrates a good knowledge of the research project • Speaks clearly and naturally; makes eye contact • Uses visual aids to enhance the presentation • Answers most questions • Presentation is clear for the most part, but not consistently • All expected components are present, but layout is crowded or jumbled and somewhat confusing to follow in the absence of presenter • The text is relatively clear, legible, and mostly free of spelling or typographical errors; the background is unobtrusive • Most of the figures and tables are appropriate and labeled correctly • Photographs/tables/graphs improve understanding 3 Student: • Demonstrates some knowledge of the research project • Reads from the poster (slide or script) some of the time • Uses some visual aids to enhance the presentation • Has some difficulty answering challenging questions • Presentation is generally unclear and inconsistent • Most of the expected components are present, but layout is confusing to follow in the absence of presenter • The text is relatively clear and legible, but inconsistently free of spelling or typographical errors; the background may be distracting • The figures and tables are not always related to the text, or appropriate, or are labeled incorrectly • Photographs/table/graphs do not improve understanding 2 Student: • Demonstrates a poor knowledge of the research project • Reads from the poster (slide or script) most of the time • Does not use the available visual aid to enhance presentation effectively • Has difficulty answering questions • Presentation is unclear • Some of the expected components are present, but layout is untidy and confusing to follow in the absence of the presenter. • The text is hard to read due to font size or color and inconsistently free of spelling or typographical errors; the background may be distracting. • The figures and tables are not related to the text, or are not appropriate, or are poorly labeled. • Photographs/tables/graphs are limited and do not improve understanding of the project. 1 Student: • Does not demonstrate any knowledge of the research project • Reads from the poster (slide or script) all the time • Does not use the available visual aid to enhance presentation • Does not understand questions • Presentation is very confusing • Some of the expected components are present, but poorly laid out and confusing to follow in the absence of the presenter. • The text is hard to read, messy and illegible, and contains multiple spelling or typographical errors very poor background • The figures and tables are poorly done • Visual aids are not used