DPST1051 / BLSC1342 — Science Communication Project Rubric Visual Abstract (10 Marks) 1. Organisatio
DPST1051 / BLSC1342 — Science Communication Project Rubric
Visual Abstract (10 Marks)
1. Organisation and Audience
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Clear title and logical organisation. Main ideas easily understood by a DPST1051/BLSC1342 audience. | Organisation unclear in places. Main ideas still easily understood. | Title clear but organisation needs improvement for clarity. | Title unclear, lacks logical organisation. Ideas not understandable for the audience. | No title and presentation unsuitable for audience. |
| Marks | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0.5 | □ 0 |
2. Content and Effectiveness of Communication
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Accurately and effectively communicates main points with sufficient detail, without overwhelming viewer. | Accurately communicates main points; minor superfluous text in some areas. | Represents the review but some areas lack accuracy or are overly detailed. | Lacks accuracy, detail insufficient or excessive text overwhelms viewer. | Missing or incomplete; no portrayal of mini literature review. |
| Marks | □ 4.0 | □ 3.0 | □ 2.0 | □ 1.0 | □ 0 |
3. Communicates Topic Visually
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Visually appealing and engaging. Images, text, graphs/icons enhance understanding. | Visually acceptable and engaging. Most visual elements aid communication. | Somewhat engaging; visuals moderately support communication. | Poor visual planning; visuals minimally contribute to understanding. | Missing or incomplete; no evident design. |
| Marks | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0.5 | □ 0 |
4. References
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Relevant references included and correctly cited in Harvard style. | Relevant references; mostly accurate Harvard format with minor errors. | References included but selection or accuracy needs improvement. | References lack accuracy or are incomplete; citation incorrect. | No references or citations. |
| Marks | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0.5 | □ 0 |
Verbal Presentation (10 Marks)
1. Content and Clarity
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Clear articulation of key concepts; logical, well-organised, easy to understand. | Clear articulation; well-organised and understandable. | Adequate clarity; generally logical structure. | Struggles to communicate concepts; disorganised or unclear. | Presentation incomplete or missing key concepts. |
| Marks | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0.5 | □ 0 |
2. Engagement
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Captivates audience throughout full 3 minutes. | Maintains audience attention for most of the presentation. | Captures attention at some points. | Struggles to engage audience. | No engagement; presentation incomplete. |
| Marks | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0.5 | □ 0 |
3. Delivery
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Clear, audible, appropriate pace; varied tone that conveys enthusiasm effectively. | Clear and audible; varied tone mostly effective. | Acceptable clarity and tone; some pacing issues. | Speech unclear; pacing/ tone ineffective. | Presentation incomplete; no enthusiasm displayed. |
| Marks | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0.5 | □ 0 |
4. Integration of Visual Representation
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Actively refers to visual abstract; strong alignment between visuals and speech. | Actively refers; good alignment. | Active reference but some misalignment. | Little/no reference to visual abstract; poor alignment. | No interaction with visual abstract. |
| Marks | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0.5 | □ 0 |
5. Time Management
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Within 3-minute limit; all essential points covered. | Within 10% of time limit; key points covered. | Within 20% of time limit; most key points covered. | Reaches/exceeds 4 minutes; presentation incomplete. | No demonstration of time management. |
| Marks | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0.5 | □ 0 |
Question Time (5 Marks)
1. Answers Questions
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Thorough preparation; strong knowledge; enhances credibility. | Well-prepared; contributes to credibility. | Adequately prepared; depth could improve. | Struggles to answer; credibility affected. | No questions answered; incomplete presentation. |
| Marks | □ 2.5 | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0 |
2. Asks Questions
| Criteria | Excellent | Very Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | Not Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Description | Asks thoughtful, relevant questions to other presenters. | Asks questions, though broad. | Asks questions that are vaguely relevant. | Asks questions but irrelevant or poorly constructed. | Does not ask questions. |
| Marks | □ 2.5 | □ 2.0 | □ 1.5 | □ 1.0 | □ 0 |
