Documented Essay Presentation
|
Excellent
(Writer responds thoughtfully and creatively, requiring little or no revision) |
Good
(Writer responds fully, requiring some revision) |
Fair
(Writer responds mostly competently, requiring focused, substantive revision) |
Needs Work
(Writer responds incompletely, requiring extensive revision) |
Context | Clear and engaging articulation of context and purpose; the audience is well oriented from the outset:
|
Adequate articulation of context; the introduction is mostly engaging and the audience is mostly well oriented from the outset: | Presentation’s introduction is not engaging, and orientation for the audience is inadequate: | Presentation does not meet audience needs by not providing engagement and orientation at the outset:
|
Introduction | • Introduction articulates a sophisticated, focused topic with a thesis that makes a clear assertion.
• Approach to topic shows evidence of original thinking. • Opening skillfully and specifically forecast main points of essay. |
• Introduction articulates clearly focused topic with a thesis that goes beyond the points made in the essay read in class.
• Opening forecast main points of essay but may do so in a predictable way. |
• Topic is not clearly articulated, or thesis is unclear and confusing.
• Opening may forecast main points of essay but may exhibit a few problems. |
• Chosen topic is too broad or too narrow for assignment, causing confusion for the reader.
• Topic may not be clearly articulated, and thesis is unclear or missing entirely. • Opening does not forecast main points of essay. |
Purpose | • Approach to topic shows evidence of original thinking.
• Audience needs and expectations are clearly anticipated in an engaging way. • Purpose is clear, and student answers the “So what?” question in engaging and perhaps innovative way. |
• Student clearly articulates approach to topic but does so in a predictable way.
• Audience needs are anticipated. • Purpose is clear, and writer answers the “So what?” question but in a conventional way. |
• Student approach to topic is not clear, and purpose for writing may not be clear.
• Presentation is speaker oriented rather than audience-oriented, and audience needs are not clearly anticipated. |
• Presenter’s approach to topic is not clear.
• Purpose is not clear. • Presentation is speaker-oriented, and audience needs are not anticipated. |
Substance | Content is well selected and developed; focus is clear and audience’s needs are accounted for: | Content is mostly well selected and developed to meet most of the audience’s needs in terms of focus and interest:
|
Some content is superfluous or not clearly connected to focus. Audience’s needs are not consistently accounted for: | Focus of presentation is unclear. Content is not specific enough to engage audience:
|
Details | • Presentation is fully developed with concrete details that support thesis and clearly anticipates audience needs and expectations.
• No irrelevant details are included, and outside sources are used in a responsible, strategic way. |
• Presentation has developed concrete details that support thesis and clearly attempts to anticipate audience needs and expectations.
• A few irrelevant details may be included. • Outside sources used in a predictable or mechanical way. |
• Presentation is speaker-oriented, concrete details are underdeveloped, and attempts to anticipate audience needs and expectations are not clear.
• Several irrelevant details may be included. • Outside sources may be used carelessly (e.g. weak transitions from one source to the next). |
• Presentation is clearly speaker-oriented, concrete details are severely undeveloped, and little attempt is made to anticipate audience needs and expectations.
• Several irrelevant details may be included. • Outside sources are not used at all or are used incorrectly. |
Relevance | • Details and evidence are fully developed and relevant to the student’s claims.
• Presenter anticipates audience needs and expectations through using evidence in an engaging and sophisticated way. • No irrelevant details are included. |
• Details are fully developed and relevant to the presenter’s claims.
• Presenter attempts to anticipate audience needs and expectations through using evidence in a conventional way. • A few irrelevant details are included. |
• Details are underdeveloped and may not fully support the presenter’s claims.
• Evidence may be used in a scattershot, inconsistent way or is overused and obscures the writer’s voice. • Several irrelevant details are included, and presenter may include some tangential text.
|
• Presentation is clearly speaker-oriented, concrete details are severely undeveloped, and no attempt is made to anticipate audience needs and expectations.
• Presentation includes several tangents, causing confusion for the audience. |
Organization | Organization is appropriate to topic and emphasis, with some originality; shows attention to audience needs:
|
Organization is conventional, showing some attention to audience needs:
|
Organization of presentation is more speaker-oriented, creating diffuse emphasis and some difficulty as audience tries to follow claims:
|
Organizational strategies are not useful for topic or audience and impede audience movement through presentation:
|
Body and Conclusion | • Presentation is organized in an engaging and perhaps innovative pattern of organization that builds momentum.
• Transitions offer sophisticated and clear orientation to topic, and subtly move reader from one idea to the next.
|
• Presentation is organized in a logical pattern of organization that may be predictable.
• Transitions are clear but may exhibit a few problems.
|
• Organization is confusing and sometimes difficult to follow and is speaker-oriented rather than audience-oriented.
• Transitions may be weak or missing. |
• Organization is confusing and difficult to follow, causing confusion for the audience.
• Transitions are weak or missing entirely. |
Individual
Viewpoints |
• Each viewpoint adapted to subject, purpose, and audience but in an engaging and perhaps innovative way.
• Each viewpoint is one idea each and is fully developed and supported with evidence from outside sources. |
• Points are adapted to subject, purpose, and audience.
• Each viewpoint is one idea each and is fully developed and supported with evidence from outside sources. |
• Viewpoints may not be clearly adapted to subject, purpose, or audience.
• Each viewpoint is may be one idea each but are underdeveloped or there may be more than one idea. |
• Points are not clearly adapted to subject, purpose, and audience, causing confusing for the reader.
• Viewpoints may be one idea each but are severely undeveloped, and several points contain more than one idea. |
Style/Delivery | Style is particularly well suited for topic and audience: | Style is conventional:
|
Style interferes with clarity in some places: | Style significantly detracts from clarity: |
Speech/Presentation Delivery | • Delivery is clear, fluid, and mature.
• Precise, vivid and appropriate word choice. • Sentences varied. Subordination and coordination used effectively. • Between 7-9 minutes
|
• Presentation is understandable and competent with mostly precise and vivid word choice.
• Most sentence structures are varied, and subordination and coordination mostly used well. • More than 10 minutes |
• Speaking vague and disjointed.
• Presentation structurally varied with some vivid word choice. • Less than 9 minutes
|
• Presentation is confusing with conventional word choice.
• Speech structured similarly and/or are simple sentences. • Less than 7 minutes |
Delivery (for research material) | Innovative accommodation of media and conventions; audience expectations and processing are carefully accounted for: | Adequate accommodation of media and conventions; audience expectations and processing are mostly accounted for: | Some problems with audience first impressions; inadequate proofreading interferes in places with audience processing: | Delivery choices distract from research and interfere with audience expectations and processing: |
Formatting | • Annotated Bibliography/Works Cited is formatted correctly following MLA or APA style.
|
• Annotated Bibliography/Works Cited is double-spaced and follows most MLA citation styles.
• No extra spaces between paragraphs. • Page numbers may be missing. |
• Annotated Bibliography is double-spaced but does not otherwise consistently follow MLA formatting conventions.
• Page numbers are missing, and extra spaces may occur between paragraphs. |
• Does not follow any MLA formatting conventions.
|
Proper
Style Conventions |
• In-text citations follow correct MLA, and Annotated Bibliography/Works Cited page is formatted correctly. | • Some minor problems with MLA in-text citation, and Annotated Bibliography/Works Cited is mostly formatted correctly with one or two minor errors. | • Evidence of attempt to cite sources, but in-text citations and/or Works Cited page are not correct. | • Few to no in-text citations used. No Works Cited or Annotated Bibliography. |