Macbeth Oral Presentation Media Project Rubric: Peer Review
Name: _____________________________________________________ Class: _________ Text: _____________________________________
Descriptor
Below Standard
1
Knowledge and
Understanding
Does the project indicate thorough
understanding of the play? Are the “big
ideas” of the play addressed (theme,
character development, conflicts, etc)?
Does this presenter know the play
“inside and out”?
Marginal
2
q Little to no knowledge or
understanding of the text
q Some knowledge and
understanding of the play
q Little to no knowledge and
understanding of the
characteristics of the chosen
aspect
q Some knowledge and
understanding of the
characteristics of the chosen
aspect
q Summarizes or paraphrases
with little to
interpretation/analysis
q Some interpretation / analysis
q Flawed understanding of the
creative aspect
q Weak application of skills of
analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation: logic is flawed
Adequate
3
Good
4
Excellent
5
q Adequate knowledge and
understanding of the play and
the thoughts and feelings
expressed in the text
q Good knowledge and
understanding of the play and
the thoughts and feelings
expressed in the text
q Excellent knowledge and
understanding of the play and
the thoughts and feelings
expressed in the play
q Adequate knowledge and
understanding of the
characteristics of the chosen
aspect
q Good knowledge and
understanding of the
characteristics of the chosen
aspect
q Excellent knowledge and
understanding of the
characteristics of the chosen
aspect
q Adequate interpretation of the
text; a somewhat superficial
engagement with the text
q Good interpretation of the
play; a careful, close
examination of the text
q Excellent interpretation of the
play; a perceptive examination
of the text’s nuances
q Some examination of the
creative aspect
q Solid examination of the
creative aspect
q Inconsistent application of
skills of analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation: logic may be
flawed
q A perceptive interpretation /
examination of the details of the
creative aspect
q Good skills of analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation: logic q Excellent skills of analysis,
is nearly flawless
synthesis, and evaluation: logic
is virtually flawless
q Accurate support evident by
Does the project indicate a strong
knowledge of the roles and
responsibilities of the creative aspect
chosen (director, designer, actor,
graphic artist, etc)?
Interpretation and
Analysis
Are you impressed? Did you learn
something? Did you think about the
text in a way that you haven’t thought
about it before? Has the presentation
got you thinking about the complexity
of the play? About the demands of this
particular creative job/role?
Are the details of the creative analysis
linked to a bigger idea? Are enough
details presented to effectively support
a point? Are the details connected to
each other? Are they examined in
enough detail as to make their purpose
clear? Do they work together to build
an argument? Are the artistic choices
examined always linked back to text?
Organisation and
Development
Is the presentation well organised?
Was there a smooth start and a
satisfying conclusion? Did ideas build
on each other logically? Were there
any confusing jumps between ideas?
Were there parts that went on too long?
Parts that seemed missing? Did the
presentation generally seem
“complete”?
q No evidence of skills of
analysis, synthesis and/or
evaluation
q Little to no support evident by
citing examples, or basically
inaccurate
q Little to no analysis evident;
analysis may mix with
evaluation or personal opinion
q Little understanding of the
creative aspect examined
q Support evident by citing
examples, but accuracy
lacking
q Incomplete analysis of
evidence: points are vague or
unsupported
q Support evident by citing
examples
q Adequate analysis of cited
evidence
correctly citing examples
q Good analysis of cited
evidence
q Precise and pertinent support
evident by correctly citing
examples
q In-depth, comprehensive
analysis of cited evidence
q No introduction results in a
confusion of purpose
q Introduction present a rather
ambiguous purpose
q Introduction relates a purpose
but it is somewhat unclear
q Introduction presents a clear
purpose
q Introduction presents a clear
and sophisticated purpose
q Presentation lacks a focus;
support points are generally
unrelated or unfocused
q Presentation may lose focus or
lack a clear idea; some
supports are not connected
q Proof is poorly chosen or
generally lacking; there is little
to no analysis
q Questionably chosen proof
supports a few points: proof is
insufficiently examined,
explained, or relevant to the
main idea
q Presentation remains focused
on an idea with most supports
adequately connected to this
idea
q Presentation remains focused
on a clear idea with every
support clearly connected to
this idea
q Presentation remains focused
on a clear idea with every
support powerfully connected
to this idea
q Acceptably chosen proof
supports most points: proof
may be inconsistently
examined, explained, and
relevant to the main idea
q Well chosen proof supports
each point: proof is adequately
examined, explained, and
relevant to the main idea
q Powerfully chosen proof
supports each point: proof is
thoroughly examined,
explained, and clearly relevant
to the main idea
q Overall structure and/or
organization of ideas is
ineffective
q Inappropriate use of links/
transitions; little/no coherence
q Conclusion is inappropriate or
missing
q Presentation is inconsistently
organised with a haphazard
approach to building an
argument
q Use of links/transitions but at
times lacks coherence
q Conclusion is weak
q Presentation is competently
organised with a logical if
uninspired approach to building
an argument
q Coherent structure with average
use of links; transitions are
ordinary but sufficient
q Conclusion is functional
q Presentation is well organised
with a logical approach to
building an argument
q Coherent structure with good
use of appropriate links and
solid and varied transitions
q Conclusion is effective
q Presentation is strikingly
organised with a keen
sensitivity to building an
argument
q Strong coherence through use
of clear links and sophisticated
and varied transitions
q Conclusion makes interesting
and effective connections
Visual Literacy
Did it look good? Were you
impressed? Did you want to keep
watching? Or was it hard to watch?
Was it hard on the eyes (visual
quality/lighting/ colours /size /
transitions)? Do you feel the creators
really had their audience in mind?
Was everything purposeful? Were the
clips the right length? Not too long?
Not too short?
q Presentation aesthetics and
techniques are not purposeful
and fail to support content
q Ineffective use of
graphics/images/videos/links
q Written text is largely
inappropriate
q Font formatting makes it
difficult to read the material
q Transitions are ineffective
q Errors in spelling,
capitalization, punctuation,
usage and grammar repeatedly
distract the reader; major
editing and revision is required
Communication and
Delivery
Did you get a strong sense of audience
in watching the presentation? Do you
feel that the presenter considered you in
constructing this project? Were you
able to enjoy the presentation in an
auditory way? Was it loud enough?
Clear enough? Did you appreciate the
register and presentation style?
q Communicates with a limited
sense of audience and purpose
q Presentation aesthetics and
techniques are inconsistent in
effectiveness and support of
content and/or purpose
q Presentation aesthetics and
techniques are effective in
developing content and/or
purpose
q Presentation aesthetics and
techniques are creative and
effectively enhance content
and/or purpose
q Presentation aesthetics and
techniques are creative and
effectively enhance content
and/or purpose
q Graphics/images/videos/ links
are at times unclear and/or
inappropriate
q Graphics/images/videos/ links
are adequate
q Graphics/images/videos/ links
are attractive and support the
theme/topic
q All graphics/images/videos/
links are attractive and
effectively enhance the
theme/topic
q Written text is at times
inappropriate (either too much
or too little)
q Font formatting is at times
hard to read
q Transitions are at times
ineffective and inconsistent
q Written text is adequate in
content and length
q Font formatting is adequate
q Written text is thoughtful and
appropriate
q Transitions are generally
effective
q Font formats have been
planned to enhance readability
q Slides have 3-5 spelling,
punctuation, and grammatical
errors
q Transitions are consistent
q Spelling, punctuation, and
grammatical errors at times
distract or impair readability
q Slides have no more than two
misspellings and/or
grammatical errors
q Written text is precise and
concise
q Font formats have been
carefully planned to enhance
readability and content
q Transitions are effective and
consistent
q Visuals have no misspellings
or grammatical errors
q Communicates with a
moderate sense of audience
and purpose
q Communicates with an
adequate sense of audience and
purpose
q Communicates with a
considerable sense of audience
and purpose
q Communicates with a
extensive sense of audience
and purpose
q Vocal clarity is lacking and is
frustrating for the audience
q Pace, and/or volume at times
impede audience
understanding
q Pace and/or volume require
more attention/ further practice
q Pace and volume are utilized to
enhance presentation
q Pace and volume are utilized
in a sophisticated fashion
q Adequate vocal clarity
q Consistent vocal clarity
q Word choice and register is too
casual or inappropriate
q Vocal clarity falters on
occasion
q Word choice and register is
generally appropriate
q Excellent vocal clarity
(enunciation & pronunciation)
q Eye contact is lacking
q Word choice and register are
generally appropriate but at
times too informal
q Eye contact is consistent
q Strong word choice and formal
register supports presenter’s
credibility and purpose
q Pace, and/or volume are
problematic
q Body movement is
inappropriate for intended
purpose
q Eye contact is inconsistent
q Body movement is at times
distracting; too busy or too
restricted
q Body movement is generally
appropriate
q Eye contact is generally
sustained throughout
presentation
q Body movement is purposeful
and controlled
q Sophisticated word choice and
formal register greatly
enhances presenter's
credibility and purpose
q Eye contact is sustained
throughout presentation for
effect (if applicable)
q Body movement is purposeful
and controlled and utilized to
help deliver message (if
applicable)
Comment:
Foran 2014
o
What is your overall impression?
o
Write a comment outlining the strengths of the multi-media presentation and what you most appreciated about it.
o
Comment on the learning you gained from an audience perspective. What are your “take-aways”?
o
Be sure to consider your audience when writing your comment! Firstly, the presenters themselves, but secondly, a public forum of academic review.
Choose your words carefully!