Presentation evaluation: Distribution of Royalty Income and Patent Applications at Universities in the U.S.
Presenter(s): Sakura Hashimoto
Quantitative:
The first column is the category of evaluation, the second the instructor’s evaluation, the third the class average. The grade for the presentation is the total of column 2 or column 3, whichever is higher.
| citation (spoken) | 3.0 |
3.0 |
| citation (written) | 3.0 |
3.0 |
| use of primary sources | 3.0 |
3.0 |
| use of secondary sources | 2.5 |
2.5 |
| preparation | 3.0 |
3.0 |
| organization | 3.0 |
3.0 |
| development of ideas | 3.0 |
3.0 |
| use of visual / other aids | 3.0 |
3.0 |
| technique of presentation | 3.0 |
3.0 |
| response to questions | 2.5 |
2.5 |
| Total | 29.0 |
29.0 |
Number of evaluations: 3
Low grade: 28.0
High grade: 30.0
Median grade: 29.0
Recorded grade: A
Scale:
A (excellent ~ good) = 26~30; B (average) = 20~25,
C (below average) = 15~19, D (failure) = 14 and below.
Qualitative:
Comments are from students except in the rare case when the instructor has a comment to add to what students have said; the instructor’s comments if any will be in brackets and initialed.
What was most successful about the presentation?
Showing many graphs during the presentation supported her thesis strongly. Also, making eye contact with the audience made her look very confidant.
What could have been better about the presentation?
Distributing handouts to the audience would have made the presentation better, since the graphs were difficult to see from the audience.
 |
 |
 |
Read other evaluations
for this course
