STRUCTURE
(A) The talk was logically structured and easy
to follow (at a 3rd year
physics undergraduate level). The talk included clear descriptions
of
the aims, background, experimental methods and results of the
project. A clear summary/conclusions section was included. There
was
clear evidence of planning and preparation.
(B) The
talk was generally clearly and logically structured, but some elements were
difficult to follow (for example, due to a flawed logical flow of ideas).
However, it was clear that considerable time was spent in planning and
preparing the talk.
(C) The
talk was reasonably well structured but there were significant omissions which
rendered the talk quite difficult to follow. The flow of the talk was somewhat
disorganised and it was clear that more preparation was needed.
(D) The
talk was poorly structured, disorganised and very difficult to follow. A large
amount of key information was omitted or
presented in a very "sketchy" fashion. Considerably more preparation
was required.
(E) The
talk was very poorly structured with little evidence of planning or
preparation. It was extremely difficult to follow.
(F) The
talk was completely disorganised and
unstructured. It was clear that no or almost no preparation was involved.
DEGREE OF UNDERSTANDING
(A) The
student demonstrated an extremely good understanding of the fundamental physics
and experimental methods underlying the project.
(B) The
student demonstrated a good understanding of the fundamental physics and
experimental methods underlying the project.
(C) The
student demonstrated a reasonable understanding of the fundamental physics and
experimental methods underlying the project. The explanations/descriptions
contained some misunderstandings.
(D)
The
student demonstrated little understanding of the fundamental physics and/or
experimental methodology. The explanations/ descriptions contained errors and
were very difficult to follow
(E)
The
student demonstrated a very poor understanding of the fundamental physics and
the experimental methodology.
(F) The
student demonstrated no understanding of the fundamental physics nor the experimental
methodology. The explanations/ descriptions delivered in the talk therefore
served to confuse and misinform the audience.
PRESENTATION & CLARITY
(A) The
student was clearly audible, the visual aids clear and well-prepared and the
student appeared enthusiastic and interested in the subject and presented clear
explanations/descriptions.
(B) The
student was clearly audible and the visual aids well-prepared. However, the
student exhibited small lapses in presentation style or was, at times, somewhat
difficult to follow.
(C) The
student was sometimes difficult to hear and/or the visual aids sometimes
difficult to read/follow. There were flaws in presentation.
(D)
The
student was difficult to hear and/or the visual aids poorly prepared and thus
very difficult to follow. There were considerable flaws in presentation style
(E)
The
student was difficult to hear, the visual aids very poorly prepared and the
presentation very poor.
(F) The student was very difficult to hear
and the visual aids either non-existent or extremely poorly prepared.