Rubrics for Assessing Presentations and Teamwork

As part of the Assurance of Learning task currently underway in the School, the Business
School Group on Academic Standards is recommending the following rubrics to programmes
in relation to the assessment of presentations and teamwork skills. In recommending these
rubrics after consideration of the various options available the group is mindful that they may
not exactly meet the needs of all programmes being offered in a School as big as ours.
Therefore, while embodying core principles, these recommendations are not to be seen as
prescriptive. Clearly, individual programme teams are encouraged to introduce innovation to
their approaches over time.

It is assumed, if presentation and teamwork skills are to be assessed, that students are given
adequate instruction by academic staff beforehand. This could involve a range of measures,
from circulating best practice to teaching and offering feedback on student performance of
these skills. 1

(i) Assessing Presentation Skills

In the assessment of presentation skills, a separation is required between the content of

student work and the skills demonstrated in delivering oral presentations on that work. This
is necessary because: (a) the content of a presentation reveals skills other than presentation
skills that may be discipline specific (eg the analytical or problem-solving ability of
students); and (b) examiners from different disciplines might require discretion in weighting
together content and delivery. The following rubric, which is to be used by academic staff,
therefore refers only to the delivery and not the content of an oral presentation by students,
either individually or in teams (it assumes that visual aids are used in the form of, for
example, powerpoint presentations):

• Verbal skills. For example: clear expression, appropriate tone, rapport with audience,
adherence to allotted time, responding to questions, engaging in constructive dialogue.
• Non-verbal skills. For example: appropriate eye contact, body language and appearance,
enthusiasm displayed; organization of presentation space.
• Visual Aids. For example: appropriate number of slides, appearance of slides, use and
appearance of visual and other aids.
• Overall score – this is based on a weighting of the three headings above. For simplicity
they may be equally weighted. However, depending on the kind of programme, academic
staff might need to vary the weights.

Under each heading above, there is a gradation (see Appendix 1). This rubric can be
combined (where relevant) with that being used to assess content in order to arrive at overall
marks. Thus, if 80% of the mark is devoted to content and 20% to delivery, then the latter is
internally weighted according to the rubric above.

1
There are numerous sources on oral communication skills. The following provides excellent instruction on
teamwork - Kahn, W.A. The Student’s Guide to Successful Project Teams. The Psychology Press, Taylor and
Francis, London
It is recommended that students be given feedback under each of these headings and that all
presentations are videoed to assure marking accuracy and to improve the quality of feedback
to students.

(ii) Assessing Teamwork Skills

Teamwork skills may be demonstrated by students in (a) placements and (b) team projects.

a) Placement.

As part of the evaluation of student performance, workplace mentors are currently required to
evaluate teamwork. Of the questions they are asked, one is explicitly to do with teamwork -
‘the ability of students to work with others’. This is evaluated on the existing Business
Mentor Evaluation Form on a scale from 1 poor to 5 excellent. This kind of evaluation may
be used for Assurance of Learning purposes. Clearly, as programmes innovate further
questions relating to different aspects of teamwork may be added in future.

b) Team Projects

In the assessment of teamwork skills in a team project there is a need to separate these skills
from other competencies displayed by students, such as analytical ability or written
communication skills of students.

The following rubric, which is to be used by students in a peer evaluation, refers only to the
quality of teamwork displayed by students in teams and does not refer to the quality of
student contributions (which is to be assessed separately by academic staff):

• Attendance at Meetings – percentage (%) of meetings attended (absences from meetings

are permitted where students are subject to extenuating circumstances).
• Preparation for Meetings – completion of agreed tasks in advance for circulation; review
of other member’s work in advance.
• Contribution at Meetings – extent to which contributions are made by each member
across all team meetings, including chairing meetings; active listening; paraphrasing
others contributions; developing ideas discussed; ensuring meetings stay on track; setting
agendas for future meetings; willingness to take on future tasks.
• Overall score – based on the overall judgement on the quality of teamwork displayed.
[Note that in order to facilitate the different ways in which students might participate in
teamwork there are no fixed weights recommended in combining attendance, preparation
and contributions].

Under each of the above headings, there is a gradation (see Appendix 2). Students would be
required to engage in peer evaluation, where it is recommended that they confidentially score
other team members, and themselves, using the above rubric. Peer evaluation should be
carried out at the mid-way stage of a project and on project completion. The purpose of the
mid-way peer evaluation would be for academic staff to identify areas where team members
could improve and/or where further instruction and guidance may be required. The overall
score for each team member would be computed from the final peer evaluation and would be
the combined overall average score from other team members. These final scores may be
used for Assurance of Learning purposes.

It is recommended that teams be instructed to keep written records of (i) attendance at

meetings, (ii) submission of work in advance, (iii) minutes of meetings and (iv) agenda’s for
individual meetings. On completion of the project, students would submit these records
(typically as an appendix to their project). A further option is for student teams to agree on a
team mission, the roles and responsibilities of team members and report on team progress.
This would involve the development of a project charter by students, containing detailed
records of attendance, submission of work, minutes, future agenda’s etc. Individual students
would then be required to make a submission, containing these records, along with their
reflections on the progress of teamwork, which would be graded by academic staff, using
criteria with which students are familiar.

Team members will be informed that their individual scores and team records are to be
consulted when lecturers are considering the distribution of overall marks for the team project
to individual members. The issue here is to penalize free-riding, if it is found to be present
(this is a separate issue from Assurance of Learning). Evidence suggestive of free-riding is
deemed to be present if each of the other members of a team gives similarly low ratings to a
particular member(s). In these circumstances, academic staff should seek guidance from the
Chair of Examinations and/or Heads of the disciplinary unit to which they belong (see guide
to Examinations for Students and Staff at: http://www.ucc.ie/en/exams/procedures-
regulations/guide/).

Best practice would be for each team member to be interviewed separately by the lecturer
about their ratings and asked to produce evidence to support them. Where it is decided, based
on these scores and interviews held, not to distribute marks equally, the lecturer produces a
report on the contribution of each member to the completion of an assignment. In fairness to
all students, where penalties are recommended, the principles of natural justice apply (ie
students can appeal recommended marks - see http://www.ucc.ie/en/exams/procedures-
regulations/appeals/].
 Appendix 1: Rubric for Assessment by Academic Staff of Presentation Skills
[Insert √ in the relevant box and offer feedback using comments below)

Team:________________________________________________
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
(1H) (2H1) (2H2) (Pass) (Fail)
Verbal Skills - clear expression, appropriate
tone, rapport with audience, adherence to allotted
time, responding to questions, engaging in
constructive dialogue.

Non-verbal skills - appropriate eye contact,

body language and appearance, enthusiasm
displayed; organization of presentation space.

Visual Aids - appropriate number of slides,

appearance of slides, use and appearance of
visual and other aids.

Overall Assessment

Feedback to students:
 Appendix 2: Rubric for Peer Evaluation of Teamwork Skills
[Insert the initials of each team member (including yourself) in the box associated with your evaluation and add comments as necessary below]

5 Excellent 4 Very Good 3 Good 2 Fair 1 Poor

Attendance at Meetings - % of meetings
attended (absences from meetings are permitted
where students are subject to extenuating
circumstances).

Preparation for Meetings – completion of

agreed tasks in advance for circulation; review of
other member’s work in advance.

Contributions at Meetings – extent to which

contributions are made by each member
(including chairing meetings); active listening;
paraphrasing others contributions; developing
ideas discussed; ensuring meetings stay on track;
setting agendas for future meetings; willingness
to take on future tasks.

Overall score – based on the overall

judgement on the quality of teamwork displayed.

Comments in support of scores.

Signed: ___________________________________________________