MODERN POETRY
EVALUATING ORAL PARTICIPATION
[Home] [Schedule] [Details on Requirements] [Deadlines]
Evaluating SLEDDS
20% Coordination:
How well did the SLEDD leaders work together, share responsibility, work up positions and interpretations together and, when appropriate, address significant differences between their viewpoints? (In short, to what extent did this seem to be a team effort, rather than a series of independent solo performances?)
50% Content:
Did the SLEDD show evidence of significant intellectual engagement? Did questions or comments address formal as well as thematic aspects of the poems presented (not only what a poem says, but how it says it)? Did SLEDD leaders draw our attention to specifics in the poems while also linking them, when possible, to other poems by this writer or by other poets we are reading, to the times, relevant literary movements, larger ideas...?
20% Delivery:
Did the SLEDD leaders speak clearly, expressively, and slowly enough for listeners to follow them with ease and interest? Did they keep up a good pace, alter rhythms and dynamics, use gestures effectively, and make good eye contact?
10% Reciprocity:
Did the SLEDD leaders ask well-formulated questions to try to generate discussion? How well did they field questions from the audience?
College-wide Guidelines for Assessing Oral Communication Skills
PARTICIPATION AND INTERACTION CRITERIA
At the end of every term all faculty who teach oral-intensive courses should evaluate the extent to which each student’s oral communication skills demonstrate the goal: To participate effectively in a discussion. Assessment should be based on a 3-point scale: (1) well demonstrated, (2) adequately demonstrated, or (3) inadequately demonstrated.
WELL DEMONSTRATED The participant makes substantive contributions to the discussion, both in terms of quality and quantity. She is well prepared, supplies relevant information and reasons cogently. She contributes to efficient group procedures by presenting ideas at an appropriate time and by building on the ideas of others. She also draws conclusions at appropriate times. Her attitude is open-minded and constructive; she listens carefully and can sensitively restructure or disagree with the ideas of others. She speaks clearly and loudly, sticks to the point and cites texts when appropriate. Overall, she is an extremely valuable member of the group.
ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED The participant makes substantive contributions to the discussion, but her performance is marred in some aspect. She may talk too much or too little. She presents ideas, but she does not usually build on the ideas of others or draw conclusions. She provides some evidence to support her ideas, but more evidence would improve her contribution markedly. He influence on the group is positive, but not outstanding.
INADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED The participant makes little positive contribution to the group, and her influence may even be negative. She may say little or try to dominate the discussion in an unproductive way. She may lack sensitivity to group process, interrupt others, or disagree in a way that makes group members uncomfortable. She may fail to listen carefully to others and she may make comments which are irrelevant to the idea under discussion.
ORAL PRESENTATION CRITERIA
At the end of every term all faculty who teach oral-intensive courses should evaluate the extent to which each student’s oral communication skills demonstrate the goal: To deliver an oral presentation effectively. Assessment should be based on a 3-point scale: (1) well demonstrated, (2) adequately demonstrated, or (3) inadequately demonstrated.
WELL DEMONSTRATED The speaker chooses a challenging topic; she has a clear, specific purpose which she communicates cogently. Those listening to the speech are encouraged to think in a new or more sophisticated way. The manner in which the speech is delivered is impressive: the student shows poise and does not have distracting habits. Her pronunciation, word usage and ability to hold her audience’s attention make her speech very effective.
ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED The student’s speech meets all assigned requirements such as preparing an outline, using visual aids and observing time limits. The speech is organized so that the introduction, body and conclusion are clearly identifiable. The student’s delivery is competent, but not exciting. The ideas the speech presents are interesting, but not exceptional in any way.
INADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED The student’s speech falls short in terms of content, organization or delivery. She may omit relevant information, draw unjustified conclusions, or speak in a low voice or monotone. Although she may get her basic point across, she does not hold the audience’s attention. The topic may not be suited to the time limits provided: her speech may lack adequate substance or be so filled with information as to be overwhelming.
Peer Reviews: Oral Presentations
Assess the presentation according to the criteria listed below, using this scale:
Well demonstrated = 1; Adequately demonstrated = 2; Inadequately demonstrated = 3
1. Overall Content: The presentation showed evidence of significant intellectual content and investigation.
SCORE:___
Comments:
2. Clarity: The argument was clearly presented, including the thesis or research question, main points, and conclusions.
SCORE:___
Comments:
3. Organization and Coherence: The presentation proceeded logically and smoothly with clear transitions from point to point.
SCORE:___
Comments:
4. Delivery: The presenter adhered to time limits. It is evident that she practiced her presentation and mastered her material (speaking from notes rather than reading). She spoke clearly, with assurance, and not too quickly.
SCORE:___
Comments:
5. Fielding Questions: The presenter responded seriously and effectively to questions and suggestions.
SCORE:___
Comments:
[Home] [Schedule] [Details on Requirements] [Deadlines]
Last updat: 15 January 2007