NS4 Presentation Scoring

Natural Science 4 -- Scoring Rubric for Presentations
Version 2.1

Topic: __________________________________ Date: _______________________

Presenters: (Intro)____________________, (Pro) _________________, (Con)_________________

	A 100-85% Good to Excellent	B 84-70% Needs some improvement	C 69-60% Needs More Improvement	D-F 59-0% Major Problems	Comments
Intro (70 pts)	70-60	59-49	48-42	41-0
Was the topic described well, including its history? (20)	20-17 Clear explanation and history	16.9-14	13.9-12	11.9-0 Incoherent
Were important issues* identified? (20)	20-17 Several critical issues identified	16.9-14	13.9-12	11.9-0 Provided nothing to work with.
Were the important issues well described? (Leave attack and defense to Pro and Con below.) (20)	20-17 Clear explanations of the issues.	16.9-14	13.9-12	11.9-0 Rambling examples
Quality of presenting (10)	10-8.5 Spoke spontaneously (notes are OK)	8.4-7	6.9-6.0	5.9-0 Read the whole thing.
Visual aids (Some topics require visual examples or diagrams. )	Helped the verbal presentation			Showed a video and sat down
Pro (70 points)	70-60	59-49	48-42	41-0
Were the critical Pro claims** presented? (20)	20-17 Good list of claims(s)	16.9-14	13.9-12	11.9-0 Cluttered and irrelevant
Was evidence for the claims presented? (any kind is allowed***) (20)	20-17 Many proofs, demonstrations and/or testimonials.	16.9-14	13.9-12	11.9-0 No claims were backed up.
Did the presenter (no holds barred***) play the role of an effective proponent? (20)	20-17 Sign me up!	16.9-14	13.9-12	11.9-0 No way
Quality of Presenting (10)	10-8.5 Spoke spontaneously (notes are OK)	8.4-7	6.9-6.0	5.9-0 Read the whole thing.
Visual aids (Some topics require visual examples or diagrams. )	Helped the verbal presentation			Showed a video and sat down
Con (70 points)	70-60	59-49	48-42	41-0
Were the critical (Pro or Con) claims** addressed? (20)	20-17 Good list of critical claims	16.9-14	13.9-12	11.9-0 Cluttered and irrelevant
Was evidence against the claims presented? (and/or alternative explanations and why people believe) (20)	20-17 Evidence was directly confronted	16.9-14	13.9-12	11.9-0 Only gave opinions.
Did the presenter use Critical Thinking to play the role of an effective skeptic? (20)	20-17 Fallacies exposed!	16.9-14	13.9-12	11.9-0 No baloney detected
Quality of Presenting (10)	10-8.5 Spoke spontaneously (notes are OK)	8.4-7	6.9-6.0	5.9-0 Read the whole thing.
Visual aids (Some topics require visual examples or diagrams. )	Helped the verbal presentation			Showed a video and sat down

*The issues are specific questions that the Pro and Con sides will argue about. The critical issues are those most central to the topic under discussion. Beware cluttering the Introduction with material that obscures what the topic is really about.

**A critical claim is a claim that is central to the topic. Acceptance or rejection of the topic as a whole will likely rest on these claims. Other less central claims may be discussed as well, but beware cluttering your presentation with irrelevant material that blunts the force of your argument.

*** "No holds barred" and "any kind allowed" is designed to give the Pro presenter the freedom to use the same methods and evidence that proponents use in real life. Avoid, however, setting up simple "straw men" that are designed to be knocked down by the Con presenter. Remember that a significant percentage of the population of the USA feel quite passionate about many of the topics. Part of the job of the Con presenter is to attempt an explanation of why these people believe as they do.

Intro points (70) ________; Pro Points (70) ________; Con Points (70)________; Total (210)_______

Group Percentage Score________;

Individual Deductions?

Individual Percentage Scores: Intro _______; Pro __________; Con _________.

Note on computing individual scores:

The best scores will be obtained when the group meets and plans out a presentation collectively, with the group ensuring that all parts of the topic are covered well. Most of the time, this is what is done, and the group percentage score becomes the individual percentage score. Everyone is generally pleased with the grade they get.

Occasionally, however, we get a "defector" (using the language of The Prisoner's Dilemma -- see my book list). If one person does a poor job, then the whole group is dragged down because they didn't check the quality of the overall presentation. To avoid a catastrophic drop in grade due to the defector, a filter is applied to the scores that smoothes out the large variation: each person is given the average between their individual score and the mean score of the group. The high scores still take a hit because they didn't do the group presentation check, but not as much as without the filter. The low score gets a small boost, because maybe he or she thought others would cover something they chose not to do.

Remember, the best overall result is gained through a good cooperative effort. Unlike the classic Prisoner's Dilemma Game, defection here can never reap high rewards.