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.