Back

Presentation

Instructions

  • To provide feedback on the different criteria use the sliding bar to indicate where the student fits best. Note that the position of the scalebar does not reflect a linear scale from 0-10 points. 
  • The descriptions of performance levels are only indicative of what is expected and additional comments in the open remarks space 'Feedback/feedforward' may be necessary to fine-tune, add criteria, or specify feedback. The space 'Additional Criteria, Feedback, and Comments' at the bottom of the Rubric can also be used for this purpose. Please, do not exceed the visible text in these open text boxes so the text remains accessible after export to a PDF.
  • A written narrative accompanying the rubric should be filled in under 'Additional Criteria, Feedback, and Comments'. This field is obligatory. 
  •  If a criterium is not applicable, you can use the eye icon on the right to grey-out the criterium. 
  • To save this rubric use the 'Download rubric' button to turn it into a pdf document. Examiner must upload it at the right step in OSIRIS Case.
  • An instruction video on how you can make the best use of the rubrics can be found here.  
  • Name student
  • Research group
  • Select Master's programme
    • Biofabrication
    • Bioinformatics and Biocomplexity
    • Bio Inspired Innovation
    • Biology of Disease
    • Cancer, Stem Cells and Developmental Biology
    • Cardiovascular Health and Disease
    • Drug Innovation 
    • Environmental Biology
    • Epidemiology
    • Epidemiology Postgraduate
    • Health and Environment
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Medical Imaging
    • Molecular and Cellular Life Sciences
    • Neuroscience and Cognition
    • One Health
    • Regenerative Medicine and Technology
    • Science and Business Management
    • Toxicology and Environmental Health
  • Student number
  • Rubric filled in by
    • Examiner
    • Second reviewer
    • Supervisor host institute 
    • Daily supervisor
    • Student
  • Select project type
    • Major
    • Profile
    • Mini-project

Preconditions for presentation to be eligible for assessment

  • The rubrics are discussed between the examiner and daily supervisor (if not the same person)
  • The rubrics are (orally) discussed with the student to provide extra feedback
  • Both the UU/UMCU examiner and the second reviewer/supervisor host institute were present during the presentation
Criteria
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback/feedforward
Scientific Content
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback / feedforward
Relevance and research question

• Relevance (scientific and/or societal) unclear

• Relevance (scientific and/or societal) is clear

• Relevance (scientific and/or societ) is clear and well explained

• Research question absent or lacking focus

• Research question well defined and focussed

• Substantiated (or highlighted) research question with clear focus

Methods, results, tables, figures, and discussion

• Inadequate description of methods

• Clear description of methods

• Choices of methods are explained 

• Poor explanation of results/tables/figures 

• Good explanation of results/tables/figures

• Clear and concise explanation of results/tables/figures

• Discussion lacks essential issues

• Valid discussion

• Critical in-depth discussion

Referencing

• Referral of claims/illustrations/tables is insufficient, inconsistent, incomplete, or incorrect*

• Referral of claims/illustrations/tables is correct

• Key claims and illustrations are referenced and highlighted

Critical attitude, integrity, and answering questions

• Self-reflection and critical attitude is absent

• Shows self-reflection, is aware of own strenghts and limitations, and has critical attitude towards (published) research

• Critical attitude is based on intellectual depth and profundity

• Data manipulated or left out*


 • Data used in a reliable and trustworthy manner

• Answers questions inadequately 

• Answers most of the questions adequately 

• Answers questions adequately and well-argued

• Inadequate response to critique

• Adequate response to critique

• Can value critique and suggestions

Presentation and Technique
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback/feedforward
Nonverbal skills

• Limited interaction/eye contact with audience

• Regular interaction/eye contact with audience

• Captures the audience

• Body language is distracting 

• Body language is adequate 

• Body language is constructive and effective 

• Does not continue adequately after an error

• Errors have little impact on the presentor

• Continues in an adequate manner after errors 

Speaking skills

• Speaks either too fast or too slow

• Acceptable pace

• Good pace

• Insufficient English

• Reasonable proficiency in English

• Fluent in English

• Loses attention of the audience

• Engages with the audience

• Gets and maintains attention of the audience

• Too difficult or easy for audience

• Compatible with audience

• Compatible and challenges audience 

Composition and Design
Insufficient
Sufficient-good
Good-excellent
Feedback/feedforward
Structure of presentation

• Too long/too short (+- 25%)


• Adequate time schedule (+- 10%)

• Components or parts are missing

• All required parts are present

• Correct balance presentation components; key points have been highlighted

• Absence of logical order

• Logical order of parts and slides 

• Logical order with smooth transitions

Visuals of presentation

• Too much info or detail on a single slide

• Sufficient information on a single slide 

• Clear message per slide

• Tables/figures contain too much or too little details

• Informative tables/figures

• Informative and easily readable tables/figures

• Inadequate slide quality (technical/compositional arrangement)

• Adequate slide quality (technical/compositional arrangement)

• Slide quality/arrangement adds meaning and information

• Distracting grammar or spelling errors

• Few grammar or spelling errors

• Grammar and spelling fully correct

• Amount of references on the slides distract 

• Appropriate number of references per slide 

• References per slide are indicated clearly

Additional Criteria, Feedback, and Comments**

* In case of fraud or plagiarism, the examiner will inform the Board of Examiners about this in writing
** Obligatory: please provide a written narrative to accompany the rubrics

  1. Name supervisor/examiner 
  2. Current date

Rubrics