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. 
  • 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