1.+Speech+Grading+Rubric

This is your guide to the basic grading rubric for in class speeches. On days that group speeches are given students will be required to turn in an individual grading assessment as well as a group grading assessment for each member and group that gives a speech. The group grading assessment will be completed after every member in the group has spoken. These rubrics were created using Rubistar and Microsoft Word and copies of each can be downloaded off this page.

Grading Rubric for Individual Presentations: Scale 5-1, (5 high, 1 low)

Excellent Good Average Fair Poor || Does the speaker use appropriate inflection to draw in the audience or do they talk in a monotone voice? || Articulation  || **5 ****4 ****3 2 1 ** Excellent Good Average Fair Poor || Is the speaker articulate and able to make corrections to mistakes in the speech fluidly or do they stumble over their words? || Excellent Good Average Fair Poor || Is the speaker making appropriate eye contact with the audience or are they just staring at one section of the room? || Excellent Good Average Fair Poor || Does the speaker’s gestures distract from the content of the message? || Excellent Good Average Fair Poor || How is the speaker’s overall bearing, do they seem confident and well prepared or nervous and unsure of themselves? Is the speaker dressed appropriate for the occasion? || Excellent Good Average Fair Poor || Is the speaker talking loud enough for everyone in the audience to hear? ||
 * // Criteria // ||  // Rating //  ||  // Comments //  ||
 * Inflection/Vocal Variety || **5 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">4 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">3 2 1 **
 * Pronunciation/
 * Eye Contact || **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">5 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">4 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">3 2 1 **
 * Gestures & Movement || **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">5 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">4 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">3 2 1 **
 * Bearing/Appropriate appearance || **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">5 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">4 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">3 2 1 **
 * Volume || **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">5 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">4 ****<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">3 2 1 **




 * ~ ** (Rubistar) Grading Rubric for Group Presentations ** ||
 * ~ Teacher Name: **Mr. Gruver** ||~  ||~   ||~   ||
 * ~ ** Student Name: ** ||~  ||~   ||~   ||~   ||
 * CATEGORY || 4 || 3 || 2 || 1 ||
 * Information || All information presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough. || Most information presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough. || Most information presented in the debate was clear and accurate, but was not usually thorough. || Information had several inaccuracies OR was usually not clear. ||
 * Presentation Style || Team consistently used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience. || Team usually used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience. || Team sometimes used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience. || One or more members of the team had a presentation style that did not keep the attention of the audience. ||
 * Organization || All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion. || Most arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion. || All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) but the organization was sometimes not clear or logical. || Arguments were not clearly tied to an idea (premise). ||
 * Respect for Other Members and Groups || All statements, body language, and responses were respectful and were in appropriate language. || Statements and responses were respectful and used appropriate language, but once or twice body language was not. || Most statements and responses were respectful and in appropriate language, but there was one sarcastic remark. || Statements, responses and/or body language were consistently not respectful. ||
 * Understanding of Topic || The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information forcefully and convincingly. || The team clearly undestood the topic in-depth and presented their information with ease. || The team seemed to understand the main points of the topic and presented those with ease. || The team did not show an adequate understanding of the topic. ||
 * ~ Date Created: **Feb 04, 2011 03:05 am (UTC)** ||~  ||~   ||
 * Understanding of Topic || The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information forcefully and convincingly. || The team clearly undestood the topic in-depth and presented their information with ease. || The team seemed to understand the main points of the topic and presented those with ease. || The team did not show an adequate understanding of the topic. ||
 * ~ Date Created: **Feb 04, 2011 03:05 am (UTC)** ||~  ||~   ||
 * ~ Date Created: **Feb 04, 2011 03:05 am (UTC)** ||~  ||~   ||