UMCUR Presentation and Performance Rubric
Please note: This rubric is designed for engagement with diverse projects from across disciplines. Therefore, multiple terms often are used to describe a particular criterion or element (e.g., main argument/response/findings). To make this evaluation resource useful, please rely on terms that fit the presentation/performance and disregard terms that are not appropriate or relevant for the project. These differences acknowledged, all projects should strive to express why the project matters, what it offers, and for whom, while translating key elements for a general audience. For performing arts pieces, some elements may appear in a different order and/or may be communicated with greater/lesser emphasis, depending on artistic approach, vision, and contribution. This rubric should function as a guide, but it should not constrain appreciation for the unique offerings and creativity of each student project.
| Elements | Needs Improvement (1 point) | In Development/Progressing (2 points) | Meets Expectations (3 points) | Exceeds Expectations (4 points) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Introduction/Project Focus | Limited intro and underdeveloped project explanation; lacking adequate background to understand project |
Some background with some connection to project and its relevance; intro needs more development |
Detailed project description and description of relevance, clearly trying to connect with audience |
Clear, compelling project focus; made project feel present and relevant for diverse crowd |
| 2. Guiding Question/Hypothesis/ Motivation for Project |
Very little mention or engagement with guiding question and/or project motivation description |
Unclear or underdeveloped guiding question and/or project motivation description |
Clear and fitting guiding question for the context and/or clearly described motivation, and, if applicable, addressed need for/interest in engaging deeply with topic/method/form, etc. |
Clear, insightful, fitting question for the context and/or clearly expresses and compellingly connects motivation and, if applicable, impressively addresses need for/interest in engaging with topic/method/form, etc. |
| 3. Methods/Tools/Approach(es) | Lacking, underdeveloped, and/or confusing explanation |
Explanation may not fit with and/or is in tension with the stated project focus/interest; some aspect may be underexplained |
Clear explanation that connects with guiding question, focus, and/or motivation |
Clear explanation about process that connects very well to guiding question, focus, and/or motivation; approach may be remarkable, unique, or especially impressive |
| 4. Results: Findings, Main Argument, or Response (Non-performing arts) | Material hard to identify |
Unclear and/or connection with guiding question, focus, or motivation seems disjointed |
Clear and well- connected explanation related to previous elements; adequate presentation of results |
Clear and well-connected to the question, focus, or motivation; nuanced, insightful interpretation and analysis of results; synthesis of ideas; supported with evidence and other materials |
|
5. Development of Story, Atmosphere/Setting, Imagery, Phrasing, Rhythm, Voice, and/or Other Key Artistic and Creative Elements (Performing arts only—not all items apply to every project; focus only on those that apply.) |
Undeveloped material | Partial development that could be enriched |
Full development and engagement with relevant creative components |
Especially compelling and vivid development and engagement with relevant creative components |
| 6. Implications, Contributions, and Concluding Remarks | Lacking explanation that misses big picture (i.e., the “So what?” of project) and/or conclusion feels incomplete |
Partial explanation but some critical reflections could be more developed; conclusion is present but could better complete presentation/ performance |
Fully and persuasively expresses why project matters, what it contributes to field and/or society, and contains a clear conclusion |
Compelling explanation of project key points and contributions, both to field and society; insightful reflection on why work is important, or potentially important, and for whom; suggests areas for future work, if applicable; clear concluding message—in any form—for audience |
| 7. Style and Delivery |
Relies heavily on notes or slides; has trouble articulating meaning; difficult to hear; did not engage with audience |
Hesitant or relies on slides or notes; mostly clear and audible; limited connection with audience |
Mostly familiar with content and confident in delivery; clear and audible; frequently connects with the audience through body language |
Well-prepared; communicates clearly and confidently with an engaging presence; connects with the audience through body language; shows great interest in the topic/approach/ form, etc. |
| 8. Visual, Aural (Audio), and/or other Media Elements (Not all elements apply to every project; review only those components that are used) |
Essential elements necessary for the project are not well designed, irrelevant, and/or don’t make sense |
Some essential elements may be unclear and may detract from the project |
Essential elements are mostly well-presented, relevant, and informative, but could benefit from clearer design or formatting |
Elements are well-designed, well-integrated, and connect with and clearly enhance the described project and focus |
| 9. Structure, Organization, and Transitions, Including Flow |
Lacking clear and consistent transitions; flow of ideas/expression is hard to follow/understand |
Inconsistent use of transitions, though some may be present; flow sometimes is disrupted/halted (when not part of creative effect); somewhat disorganized, with unclear transitions or lack of structure |
Present transitions and good flow of elements; pacing and timing are well done; mostly well-organized, but could benefit from clearer transitions between sections or some other area for improvement related to organization and/or flow |
Clear flow of ideas/expressive elements, from the introduction to the conclusion; clear outline or progression of key elements; well-organized and easy to follow with clear, well-crafted transitions between sections; effective use of pacing and timing |
| 10. Audience Engagement |
Unable to answer questions or respond to comments; may deflect or show a lack of understanding, preparation, or interest |
Inadequately answers questions/responds to comments; shows limited understanding of project and interest |
Responded adequately to questions and comments but may have some trouble responding to unexpected or complex questions |
Engages fully with audience questions and comments; shows an ability to respond to unexpected or complex questions or comments creatively and thoughtfully |
| 11. Accessibility to a General Audience |
Inaccessible or irrelevant to a general audience (overly technical, uses jargon, assumes a high level of knowledge) |
Somewhat accessible to a general audience, at times too technical or difficult to understand |
Relatable and understandable to a general audience |
Obvious efforts made to compellingly translate complex terms, concepts, etc., helping to show why the project matters, for whom, and with what consequences, in creative, thoughtful, and smart ways |