Oral Presentation Rubric

University of California, San Francisco

A. Content - Introduction
Outstanding (5) 4 Intermediate (3) 2 Needs Improvement (1) Absent (0)
1. Main research The main research question is clearly The main research question is The main research question is No main
question explained somewhat clear unclear question
2. Significance Makes clear what motivates them to Motivation or significance for this Motivation and significance are No
explore this question and its significance research are not clear unclear significance
3. Background Clearly explains what others have done to The background is unclear or It is unclear what the story No
set the stage for their research, explains incomplete, or lacks information behind this problem is, and background
background on the problem on what others have done before what others have done before
4. Introduction All slides in the introduction are necessary Some slides in the introduction Most of the introduction does No
to the topic and contribute to the listener’s are not directly related to the not directly relate to the introduction
understanding of the science presented science presented in this talk science presented in this talk
Suggestions for
improvement

B. Content – Data, Conclusion and Inferences

Outstanding (5) 4 Intermediate (3) 2 Needs Improvement (1) Absent (0)
1. Methods Adequately explains the methodology, and The methodology is explained, but The methodology is poorly No
clearly explains how these experiments it is not clear whether it allows the described and does not seem description
allow an answer to the question(s) an answer to the question(s) to answer the question(s) of methods
2. Results Presents just enough data, explains results Although there is too little or too The results are poorly No results
well much data, it is explained well explained and confusing
3. Conclusions The main conclusions logically follow the The conclusions are justified but The conclusions do not follow No
data and are clearly justified don’t follow the data logically the data, and are not justified conclusions
4. Inferences Explains what the work infers or means. If Inferences could be explained Meaning of the work is No
competing explanations or theories were further OR competing theories are insufficient, and competing inferences
considered, they were also well addressed not addressed. theories are not addressed.
Suggestions for
improvement

C. Q&A
Outstanding (5) 4 Intermediate (3) 2 Needs Improvement (1) Absent (0)
1. Active Pays attention to questioners and lets Pays attention but occasionally Begins answering the Doesn’t listen to
listening them finish their questions interrupts the questioner question before it’s finished the question

Copyright © 2016. Bill Lindstaedt, Laurence Clement, University of California, San Francisco, Office of Career and Professional Development. All Rights Reserved.

1
Name of Speaker:________________________________________ Name of Reviewer:_________________________________________
2. Repeating / Before answering, repeats the question or Sometimes forgets to repeat or Often forgets to repeat or Doesn’t clarify or
clarifying rephrases and clarifies it, when needed clarify the question clarify the question repeat question
3. Flaws Gracefully acknowledges any flaws or Acknowledges flaws pointed out Is defensive about flaws or No
defects pointed out by questioner by questioner, but could do it defects pointed out by acknowledgement
with more gracefulness questioner of flaws
4. Brevity Answers are short but clear and complete Answers are clear/complete, but Answers are confusing and No answers
lack brevity too long
Suggestions for
improvement

D. Interaction with Audience
Outstanding (5) 4 Intermediate (3) 2 Needs Improvement (1)
1. Eye contact Faces audience nearly all of the time, Faces away from the audience frequently, Faces away from the audience most of the
makes eye contact frequently makes eye contact occasionally time, makes little or no eye contact
2. Body Displays open body language, is Body language sometimes closed, is Displays closed body language most of the
language engagingly animated (gestures, moving somewhat animated time, stands still most of the time
around)
3. Clarity Speaks clearly and loudly enough to be Some hesitation and uncertainty are Volume is insufficient to be heard and/or
heard and understood throughout apparent during presentation, or volume is understood, or speech lacks clarity;
not always loud enough hesitation and uncertainty throughout the
presentation
4. Delivery Does not read from slides or notes Reads some materials from slides or notes Reads from slides or notes most of the time
5. Pace Pace is easy to understand Pace is sometimes too fast or too slow Pace is too fast or too slow throughout talk
(difficult for listener to stay connected)
6. Disfluency No noticeable disfluencies (ahs/uhms) Some occasional disfluencies Frequent disfluencies
Suggestions for
improvement

E. Organization of Presentation
Outstanding (5) 4 Intermediate (3) 2 Needs Improvement (1) Absent (0)
1. Purpose of Purpose of each slide is clear to the listener Some slides lack a clear purpose Many slides lack a clear No slides
slides (Important: Title of slide contains full- or title is unclear purpose and could be deleted
sentence premise)
2. Continuity Effective transitions between slides Some transitions are confusing, Slide flow lacks continuity, No slides
contribute to a continuous sequence of but the overall flow is fine ideas seem disconnected from
connected ideas, slides flow well each other
3. Roadmap Provides a roadmap/preview then several Provides an inadequate preview Provides inadequate preview No preview
reminders/signposts during the talk so that OR insufficient reminders so that AND insufficient reminders so and
the listener never feels lost listeners occasionally feel lost that listeners often feel lost signposts
4. Figures Every figure and image is clearly labeled and Some figures and images are not Many figures are not labeled No figures
Oral Presentation Rubric
University of California, San Francisco

all figures are fully explained by the presenter labeled or not explained clearly and are not explained clearly
Suggestions for
improvement

F. Content – Speculations (Optional for short talks)

Outstanding Intermediate Needs Improvement Absent
1. Impact The impact of the work for the field is clearly The impact of the work for the The impact of the work for the Impact not
explained field could be explained better field is unclear and confusing mentioned
2. Future Suggests what should be done next, points Future research is mentioned but Future research is superficially No future
Research out new questions raised by work could be developed further mentioned research

G. Summary evaluation prompts

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Not able to
Disagree assess (N/A)
1. I can repeat the main question the presenter is addressing with their
research talk to someone else
2. I am convinced that the work is significant for the field
3. I am convinced that the presenter used the appropriate methodology to
answer his/her question(s)
4. I agree with the presenter’s conclusions
5. I was excited by the potential impact of the future directions of this work
6. The speaker convinced me that he/she can think critically about their own
work
7. Overall, this presentation has had a positive impact on me

References:

How To Give a Good Talk.
Uri Alon, Molecular Cell , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , 165 – 167

Guest post: How to give a science talk
Blog post reproducing Andrew Murray’s article, August 19, 2011
It Takes 30: A blog from the Department of Systems Biology @ Harvard Medical School
https://ittakes30.wordpress.com

Copyright © 2016. Bill Lindstaedt, Laurence Clement, University of California, San Francisco, Office of Career and Professional Development. All Rights Reserved.

3