Entrep rubrics
Download as DOCX, PDF
1 like93 views
This document contains a rubric for evaluating feasibility study defenses at SouthernCityColleges. The rubric assesses introductions, organization, delivery, content, and responses to questions across five levels from emerging to excellent. For each category, the rubric provides descriptors for lower and higher performance levels and space for comments. The rubric will be used by panels and judges to evaluate group presentations on their feasibility study proposals.
Entrep rubrics
- 1. SouthernCityColleges Pilar St., Zamboanga City Senior High School Department SY 2016-2017 Rubrics for Feasibility Defense Evaluation Date: ______________ Group No. ________ Year/Section: __________________ Name of Proposal: ___________ I. ORAL PRESENTATION DEFENSE (For Panelists/Judges Only) Instruction: Please encircle the number and check the key phrases that best describe the feasibility study. A. INTRODUCTION Emerging Developing Well done Excellent 1 2 3 4 5 6 Little or no introduction Comments: _____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Interesting or engaging introduction Comments: ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ B. ORGANIZATION Emerging Developing Well done Excellent 1 2 3 4 5 6 Disorganized or poorly organized Comments: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Well organized and easy to follow smooth transitions Comments: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ C. DELIVERY Emerging Developing Well done Excellent 1 2 3 4 5 6 Manuscript was read or seemed memorized Speech was too slow/fast/soft Eye contact lacking or absent Delivery unsure, uncomfortable, stiff, unprepared Comments: _____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Speech was clear, smooth and articulate Voice projection and spacing effective Eye contact appropriate, help connect to panelists Delivery comfortable, poised and prepared Comments: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________
- 2. D. CONTENT Emerging Developing Well done Excellent 1 2 3 4 5 6 Paper and presentation highly technical for audience Terms undefined or minimally defined; background informations lacking; or assumptions lacking Presentation deficient in evaluation and synthesis Comments: _____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ General audience can understand the paper presentation Key terms defined and necessary information provided Assumptions surfaced Presentation information evaluated and well synthesized Comments: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ E. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS Emerging Developing Well done Excellent 1 2 3 4 5 6 Misunderstands questions ; sometimes cannot answer questions Comments: _____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Answers questions well with reference to own work; shows knowledge of subject Comments: ____________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________