Capstone Poster Presentation Rubric
Poster Composition and Grammar
Required sections: Title, Background / Rationale, Methods, Results, Discussion, Broader Impacts
| Score |
Category |
Comments |
| 10 |
Outstanding, Top Notch |
No Notes: All expected sections are present, clearly laid out, and easy to follow in the absence of a presenter. The poster is of the highest quality - near art-level. The text is concise, legible, and completely free of spelling or typographical errors. |
| 9.30 |
Excellent |
MINOR REVISIONS. All expected sections are present, organization is clear, background is unobtrusive. Poster is of high quality. The text is clear, legible, and mostly free of spelling or typographical errors. |
| 9.00 |
Very Good |
MODERATE REVISIONS. All expected sections are present, organization is clear. The background is unobtrusive. The text is clear, legible, and mostly free of spelling or typographical errors. |
| 8.50 |
Average |
MINOR DEFICIENCIES. Expected sections are present, but layout is confusing to follow in the absence of a presenter. The board/slide background may be distracting. The text is relatively clear and legible, but inconsistently free of spelling or typographical errors. |
| 8.00 |
Just Passing |
MODERATE DEFICIENCIES. Expected sections are mostly present, but layout is untidy and confusing to follow. The board/slide background is somewhat distracting. The text is hard to read due to font size or color. Some spelling or typographical errors. |
| < 8 |
Below passing |
MAJOR DEFICIENCIES. Expected sections are absent or poorly laid out. Poster is confusing to follow in the absence of the presenter. Very poor / distracting background. The text 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. |
| Score |
Category |
Comments |
| 10 |
Outstanding, Top Notch |
The figures and tables are labeled clearly and greatly enhance comprehension of project. Highest quality images and/or 3D models greatly enhance the visual appeal of the poster. |
| 9.30 |
Excellent |
MINOR REVISIONS. The figures and tables are clearly relevant, appropriately labeled, and improve understanding of project. High quality images and/or 3D models enhance visual appeal of poster. |
| 9.00 |
Very Good |
MODERATE REVISIONS. Most of the figures and tables are clear, relevant and labeled correctly. Images or models are of good quality. |
| 8.50 |
Average |
MINOR DEFICIENCIES. The figures and tables are not always relevant, or are labeled incorrectly, or do not improve understanding of project. The Images or Models are of adequate quality. |
| 8.00 |
Just Passing |
MODERATE DEFICIENCIES. The figures and tables are not related to the text, or are not appropriate, or are poorly labeled and/or do not improve understanding of the project. The images or models are of poor resolution and detract from the visual appeal of the poster. |
| < 8 |
Below passing |
MAJOR DEFICIENCIES. The figures comprised a small fraction of the entire poster. There is excessive text and/or figures are too small. Quality of figures and tables is inadequate. No images or 3D models shown. |
| 0 |
Total Failure |
The figures and/or Images were unacceptable in quality (overly pixelated poor resolution) |
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 |