Group Assignment 5: Presentation Marking Rubric
This is currently a copy of the 402 presentation requirements and needs to be updated for 301
Overview
The purpose of the presentation marking rubric is to outline precise evaluation criteria for the assessment of the group assignment 5 presentation. Its aim is to provide clear guidance to presenters, ensuring they have a thorough understanding of what is expected of them.
Requirements
- Slides
- Make sure to use readable fonts.
- Use short phrases instead of paragraphs of text. Avoid crowded text-only slides.
- Use pictures, diagrams etc., whenever possible.
- Add slide numbers so that it is easy to ask questions about specific slides.
- Delivering the talk
- Be positive and (pretend to be?) interested and excited.
- Speak loudly and clearly & avoid being monotonous.
- Face the audience and look at them and try to engage the audience.
- Make your talk entertaining (without overdoing it).
- Rehearse your presentation well enough that you don’t need to keep reading off your slides. If you are always reading off the slides, then the audience could simply read your slides and not listen to you at all.
- Anticipate things you need to highlight and use boxes etc to highlight them on the slides.
- Present the project to the class
- Your presentation must be targeted to the audience who are in the class.
- Presentations will be done by group.
- Presentation should be about 8 minutes, no more. Try NOT to wrap up the presentation really early. You MUST finish your presentation within the time constraints so please rehearse properly. You will lose 2 marks if you run over time.
- Presentation should cover all the aspects of group assignment 5 including the five points which should be in the report.
- You can use PowerPoint or Google Slides or whatever presentation software you like.
- You will need to present in lab in person during lab time.
- All group members will have to present.
- You must be able to answer questions about the presentation and your work so far
- You are expected to attend each other's presentations and ask questions.
Marking
- Presentation quality is marked by the below rubric (out of 20):
| Component | Excellent (5) | Good (4) | Satisfactory (3) | Unsatisfactory (2) | Poor (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slides | Slides are clear, readable, and well-designed. Text is large enough to be seen from the back of the room. Figures are appropriately sized and labeled. No more than five bullet points per slide. | Slides are mostly clear, readable, and well-designed. Text is large enough to be seen from most of the room. Figures are adequately sized and labeled. No more than seven bullet points per slide. | Slides are somewhat clear, readable, and well-designed. Text is large enough to be seen from the front of the room. Figures are somewhat sized and labeled. No more than nine bullet points per slide. | Slides are unclear, unreadable, or poorly designed. Text is too small to be seen from the back of the room. Figures are too large or too small and unlabeled. More than nine bullet points per slide. | Slides are missing, illegible, or incomprehensible. Text is too small to be seen from anywhere in the room. Figures are irrelevant or absent. Too many bullet points per slide or no bullet points at all. |
| Organization | Presentation has a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Transitions between slides are smooth and logical. Main points are highlighted and supported by evidence. | Presentation has an introduction, body, and conclusion. Transitions between slides are mostly smooth and logical. Main points are stated and supported by some evidence. | Presentation has an introduction, body, and conclusion. Transitions between slides are somewhat smooth and logical. Main points are mentioned and supported by weak evidence. | Presentation lacks a clear introduction, body, or conclusion. Transitions between slides are abrupt or illogical. Main points are unclear or unsupported by evidence. | Presentation has no discernible structure or flow. Transitions between slides are nonexistent or confusing. Main points are missing or irrelevant. |
| Demonstration of quality evaluation | Presenters demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of quality evaluation principles using SonarQube. Presenters provide a comprehensive and detailed overview of the current CI pipeline. Presenters offer insightful and well-reasoned advice on addressing current technical debt, providing clear justification and actionable recommendations. Presenters engage in a thorough and insightful discussion of metrics and tool changes, offering clear rationale and considerations for potential modifications. | Presenters demonstrate a solid understanding of quality evaluation using SonarQube, with clear explanations and examples. Presenters provide a clear and informative discussion of the current CI pipeline, covering key aspects with sufficient detail. Presenters provide solid advice on addressing current debt, supported by logical reasoning and relevant examples. Presenters provide a coherent and informative discussion of metrics and tool changes, supported by logical reasoning and relevant examples. | Presenters demonstrate a basic understanding of quality evaluation using SonarQube, but with some gaps in clarity or depth. Presenters provide an adequate overview of the current CI pipeline, though some areas may lack depth or clarity. Presenters provide basic advice on addressing current debt, though some aspects may lack depth or specificity. Presenters provide a basic overview of metrics and potential tool changes, though depth and justification may vary. | Presenters demonstrate poor understanding of quality evaluation using SonarQube, with significant gaps or inaccuracies. Presenters provide a poor or incomplete description of the current CI pipeline, with significant gaps or omissions. Presenters provide limited or unclear advice on addressing current debt, with weak reasoning or insufficient detail. Presenters offer limited or unclear insights into metrics and tool changes, with weak justification or relevance. | Presenters demonstrate little to no understanding of quality evaluation using SonarQube, with major inaccuracies or misconceptions. Presenters fail to effectively discuss the current CI pipeline, lacking coherence or relevant details. Presenters fail to provide meaningful advice on addressing current debt, lacking coherence or relevance. Presenters fail to effectively discuss metrics and tool changes, lacking coherence or substantive content. |
| Ability to answer questions | Presenters answer all questions from the audience correctly and confidently. Presenters provide additional information or examples when appropriate. Presenters are respectful and courteous to the questioners. | Presenters answer most questions from the audience correctly and confidently. Presenters provide some additional information or examples when appropriate. Presenters are respectful and courteous to the questioners. | Presenters answer some questions from the audience correctly and confidently. Presenters provide little additional information or examples when appropriate. Presenters are respectful and courteous to the questioners. | Presenters answer few questions from the audience correctly and confidently. Presenters provide no additional information or examples when appropriate. Presenters are disrespectful or discourteous to the questioners. | Presenters answer no questions from the audience correctly and confidently. Presenters provide irrelevant or inaccurate information or examples when appropriate. Presenters are rude or hostile to the questioners. |
Evaluating Deliverables Based on Presentation Content
We will use both the content of your report and presentation to grade the 5 points from the deliverables. The weight of the content of the presentation for the main grading is given below:
- Quality evaluation using SonarQube (points 1 and 2): 7.5 out of 30
- Discussing current CI pipeline (point 3): 2.5 out of 10
- Advice on paying back current debt (point 4): 3.75 out of 15
- Discussion of metrics & tool changes (point 5): 2.5 out of 10
Total presentation content grade: 16.25 out of 70
Please note that this section is separate from the presentation marks, which will be graded out of 20 according to the rubric in the table above.