Poster Presentation Judging Rubric: 20th Annual Student Research and Community Engagement Symposium
Presenter’s Name:
Poster Number:
Presenter Level: Undergraduate
Master
Doctoral
Category
Oral
Presentation
Poster
Content
Score
Presenter was confident and
professional. Established eye
contact. Clearly conveyed topic.
Answered questions well. Discussed
in layman’s terms or appropriate to
judge.
Presentation and
demonstration of
understanding was acceptable.
Demonstrated some problems
(speaking too softly, use of
jargon, hesitation, inability to
handle questions, etc.)
Presenter did not convey a
sense of confidence or ability
to clearly discuss the topic.
Additional practice would be
helpful.
Presenter was not
prepared. Demonstrated
problems in several areas
(no eye contact, no clear
discussion of topic, lack of
professionalism).
24 PTS.
20 PTS.
16 PTS.
12 PTS.
Strong Material. Well summarized.
Clearly shows development of study
or research. Material appears to
accurately support purpose of study,
hypothesis, research question or
engagement project. Strong
conclusion, implications and
reflection/analysis of experience
presented.
The content was adequately
presented, but support for the
study, research hypothesis,
question(s), or engagement
project is somewhat general.
Conclusion, implications, and
reflections were reasonable.
10 PTS.
8 PTS.
Poster was adequate but could
improve effectiveness through
better use of space through
font size, colors, heading, and
white space.
Poster was acceptable but
needs work to improve
visual appeal through better
utilization of fonts, colors,
headings, and white space.
10 PTS.
8 PTS.
12 PTS.
Poster
Appearance/
Clarity
Visually appealing and strongly
effective presentation. Easy to read.
Utilized creativity in use of fonts,
headings, colors, and white space.
12 PTS.
Poster
Organization
Topic is clearly evident. Layout of
poster is logical, and provides
sequential information from intro to
conclusion and references.
Content presented was
difficult to understand and
did not sufficiently convey a
connection to the study,
hypothesis, research
question(s), method,
conclusion, implications
and/or reflections.
Topic is apparent. The
presentation of information
could use refining.
10 PTS.
12 PTS.
Topic is not clear.
Information presented is
somewhat confusing.
8 PTS.
Connection not found
between poster content
and purpose of study,
research
hypothesis/question(s),
method, conclusions,
implications or reflections.
6 PTS.
Not visually effective.
6 PTS.
Unable to understand link
between information
presented and topic.
6 PTS.
Total Score (Max of 60):
Judge’s Name:
Feedback: