Capstone Poster Presentation Rubric

The presentation is evaluated using the following criteria:

• Background and Hypothesis/Objective
• Methods
• Results
• Conclusions and Future Work
• Poster Design and Aesthetics
• Stage Presence
• Answering Questions

Background and Hypothesis/Objective

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding	Top Notch. Background succinctly provided a clear and relevant overview of previous research that clearly informed the Hypothesis/Objective. Hypothesis/Objective clearly stated and linked to background.
9.30	Excellent	MINOR REVISIONS.
9.00	Very Good	MODERATE REVISIONS. Background clear and relevant to Hypothesis/Objective, but included extraneous information. Somewhat verbose. Hypothesis/Objective stated and linked to background
8.50	Average	MINOR DEFICIENCIES. Background unclear, excessively verbose, only somewhat relevant to Hypothesis. Hypothesis/Objective unclear and not well-linked to Background
8.00	Just Passing	MODERATE DEFICIENCIES. Background unclear, did not inform Hypothesis. Hypothesis/Objective unclear or did not seem relevant to background
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR DEFICIENCIES. Background incoherent or did not inform the Hypothesis/Objective. Hypothesis/Objective missing or incomprehensible.
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow established Guidelines

Methods

Test subjects, sample size , research design, procedures, statistics

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding	Top Notch. Succinct but clearly conveyed, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the procedures conducted. Effectively linked to the Hypothesis/Objective. Outstanding Experimental Design and Statistical Rigor.
9.30	Excellent	MINOR REVISIONS.
9.00	Very Good	MODERATE REVISIONS. Sufficiently detailed to provide a base understanding of the procedures conducted. Relevant to Hypothesis/Objective. Reasonable Experimental Design and Statistical Rigor
8.50	Average	MINOR DEFICIENCIES. Somewhat unclear, only somewhat relevant to Hypothesis. Some deficiencies in the Experimental design and/or Statistical Rigor.
8.00	Just Passing	MODERATE DEFICIENCIES. Unclear, barely relevant to Hypothesis. Poor Experimental Design. Statistics not rigorous.
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR DEFICIENCIES. Methods not stated or Experimental Design completely inadequate.
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow established Guidelines

Results

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding	Top Notch. Results included High-Quality data that clearly address the Hypothesis/Objective. Data were easy to follow, logical, and thorough, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the findings.
9.30	Excellent	MINOR REVISIONS.
9.00	Very Good	MODERATE REVISIONS. Results sufficiently addressed the Hypothesis/Objective. Data were reasonably logical and thorough, allowing for a base understanding of the findings.
8.50	Average	MINOR DEFICIENCIES. Results were somewhat unclear and only somewhat relevant to Hypothesis. Some findings were not clearly conveyed .
8.00	Just Passing	MODERATE DEFICIENCIES. Much of the Results were unclear, barely relevant to Hypothesis. Findings not clearly conveyed.
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR DEFICIENCIES. Results not stated or completely incomprehensible.
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow established Guidelines

Conclusions and Future Work

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding	Top Notch. Conclusions strongly supported by the data. Relevance to Hypothesis/Objective clearly demonstrated. Future Work logically followed the Results and included clear next steps
9.30	Excellent	MINOR REVISIONS.
9.00	Very Good	MODERATE REVISIONS. Conclusions supported by the data and was mostly relevant to the Hypothesis/Objective. Future work followed the Results, but with a few logical inconsistencies. Next steps could be improved
8.50	Average	MINOR DEFICIENCIES. Conclusions somewhat supported by the results. There was little or no relevance to Hypothesis. Future work somewhat followed the results, but not clearly.
8.00	Just Passing	MODERATE DEFICIENCIES. Conclusions not supported by data. Little connection made to Hypothesis. Future work did not logically follow results.
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR DEFICIENCIES. Conclusions and/or Future work missing.
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow established Guidelines

Poster Design and Aesthetics

Figures, Graphic Design, Text

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding	Top Notch: Superb graphic design with highest quality images that enhance visual appeal. Poster layout easy to follow, greatly enhancing comprehension of project. Figures easy to understand; labeled clearly with explanatory headers and figure legends. The text is concise, legible from afar, and completely free of spelling or typographical errors.
9.30	Excellent	MINOR REVISIONS.
9.00	Very Good	MODERATE REVISIONS. Good graphic design with quality images. Poster layout reasonably organized. Figures understandable; labeled with headers and figure legends. The text is clear, legible, and mostly free of spelling or typographical errors. Good ratio of text to images.
8.50	Average	MINOR DEFICIENCIES. Some low quality images. Adequate Graphic design. Poster layout somewhat confusing to follow. Figures adequate - font size too small too read in some cases; headers or figure legends somewhat difficult to understand. Text is relatively clear and legible, but inconsistently free of spelling or typographical errors. Too much text.
8.00	Just Passing	MODERATE DEFICIENCIES. Many low quality Images. Low quality Graphic Design detracts from visual appeal. Poster layout untidy and confusing to follow. Figures barely understandable; figure headers and legends unclear. Font size or color makes text hard to read. Some spelling or typographical errors. Excessive text.
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR DEFICIENCIES. Subpar Image Quality and inadequate Graphic Design greatly detracts from visual appeal. Poster layout poorly organized and is confusing to follow in. Figues incompressible; not clearly labeled or missing figure legends. Excessive text throughout poster is hard to read, messy and illegible; contains multiple spelling or typographical errors.
0	Total Failure	Poster did not follow the established guidelines and/or was incomprehensible.

Stage Presence

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding, Top Notch	Demonstrated exceptional knowledge of the research project. Spoke clearly, naturally, and with enthusiasm; makes eye contact. Presentation was exceptionally clear and logical. Managed time precisely.
9.30	Excellent	MINOR REVISIONS. Demonstrated strong knowledge of the research project. Spoke clearly and naturally; made eye contact. Used visual aids to enhance the presentation. Presentation was consistently clear; presentation fell within the allotted time limit.
9.00	Very Good	MODERATE REVISIONS. Demonstrated good knowledge of the research project. Spoke clearly and naturally; made eye contact. Used visual aids to enhance the presentation. Presentation was mostly clear.
8.50	Average	MINOR DEFICIENCIES. Demonstrated some knowledge of the research project. Presentation was generally unclear and inconsistent. Presentation ran over the allotted time limit, but not excessively.
8.00	Just Passing	MODERATE DEFICIENCIES. Demonstrated poor knowledge of the research project. Read from the poster most of the time, made little eye contact with the audience. Presentation was confusing.
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR DEFICIENCIES. Did not demonstrate any knowledge of the research project. Read from the poster all the time. Did not make eye contact with the audience. Presentation was exceptionally confusing.
0	Total Failure	No show / Presentation completely lacking

Answering Questions

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding, Top Notch	Exhibited mastery of the Capstone Subject by answering all questions with clear explanations and insightful elaborations.
9.30	Excellent	MINOR REVISIONS. Demonstrated strong understanding of the questions asked. Answered with explanations and elaborations
9.00	Very Good	MODERATE REVISIONS. Demonstrated good understanding of the questions asked. Responded clearly and coherently, but with few elaborations.
8.50	Average	MINOR DEFICIENCIES. Demonstrated some understanding of the asked questions. Was able to respond somewhat coherently but with few details or elaborations.
8.00	Just Passing	MODERATE DEFICIENCIES. Demonstrated poor understanding of the questions asked; responses were barely coherent.
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR DEFICIENCIES. Unable to demonstrate basic understanding of the questions asked; responses were completely tangential or incoherent.
0	Total Failure	Failed to answer any of the questions asked