RAD3004: Assessment Criteria for Oral Presentation of Neuroimaging Case Study (15% weighting)
Student name:
Student ID number:
Criterion Fail
(<50%)
Pass
(50-59%)
Credit
(60-69%)
Distinction
(70-79%)
High distinction
(80-100%)
Marks
Background
information and
rationale
No background
information is
provided.
Or minimal
background
information is
provided.
The goal of the
study is not clear.
The introduction to
the topic is
attempted but
there are several
missing or weak
arguments.
There is no
sufficient support
or solid argument
for the research
question or
proposed aims of
the experiment.
Research
question(s) or
aim(s) need clarity.
The background
information is
provided but there are
some missing or weak
arguments.
The information
presented supports
the research question
or the aim(s) but there
are some missing
pieces or weak
arguments.
The background
information is well-
presented but there
are a few missing
aspects or weak
arguments.
Most of the
background
information supports
the research question
or the aim(s) but there
are a few missing
pieces or weak
arguments.
The background
information is well-
synthesised and clearly
articulated.
The background
information clearly leads to
the research question or
aims of the proposed
experiment.
Solid arguments and
rationale are provided for
the proposed investigation.
/20
Experimental
methodology
No experimental
methodology is
discussed.
Or a very
superficial or vague
description of
experimental
Experimental
methodology is
included but many
details are missing.
Essential
components of the
experiment are
Experimental
methodology is
explained but some
details are missing.
Essential components
of the experiment are
included and
Experimental
methodology is
described in sufficient
level of details.
Required components
of the experiment are
included and
Experimental methodology
is described thoroughly and
succinctly.
Experimental methodology
is well-formulated.
/20
methodology is
included. Several
details are missing.
Several feasibility
or reproducibility
issues.
listed but not
explained. Several
key items are
missing.
Many steps are not
feasible or
reproducible.
explained. Some key
items are missing.
Most steps are
feasible or
reproducible with
some exceptions.
explained. A few items
are missing.
Most steps are
feasible or
reproducible with a
few exceptions.
All required components of
the experiment are clearly
articulated.
All steps are feasible and
reproducible.
Analysis
approaches
Minimal or no
discussion on the
analysis
approaches.
Or a very
superficial attempt
at description of
the analysis
approaches.
Analysis
approaches are
listed but not
explained. Several
key steps are
missing.
Analysis approaches
are described and
explained. Some key
steps are missing.
Analysis approaches
are discussed and
explained in sufficient
details. A few key
steps are missing.
All proposed analysis
approaches are clearly
articulated, complete and
well-thought off. No
missing steps.
/20
Discussion on
expected
outcomes
Minimal or no
discussion on
expected
outcomes.
Or a very
superficial attempt
at description of
the expected
outcomes
Expected outcomes
are described.
Expected outcomes
are largely
incompatible with
the background
information,
experimental
methodology or
analysis
approaches
proposed.
Expected outcomes
are described and
discussed.
Expected outcomes
are generally
compatible with the
background
information,
experimental
methodology or
analysis approaches
proposed.
Expected outcomes
are described and
discussed.
Expected outcomes
are mostly compatible
with the background
information,
experimental
methodology or
analysis approaches
proposed.
Expected outcomes are
well-thought off and solid.
Expected outcomes are
supported by or consistent
with background
information, experimental
methodology or analysis
approaches proposed.
/10
Discussion on a
complementary
A complimentary
or alternative
The proposed
complimentary or
The proposed
complimentary or
The proposed
complimentary or
The proposed
complimentary or
/10
or alternative
neuroimaging
approach
neuroimaging
approach is not
discussed.
Or an alternative or
complimentary
neuroimaging
approach is listed
only without any
discussion or
explanation.
alternative
neuroimaging is
included but not
explained. But
several details are
missing.
Several feasibility
or compatibility
issues are present.
alternative
neuroimaging is
discussed. More
explanation or a
stronger rationale or
explanation is
required.
Some feasibility or
compatibility issues
are present.
alternative
neuroimaging is
carefully considered
and selected with a
good reasoning.
A few feasibility or
compatibility issues
are present.
alternative neuroimaging is
well-thought off and fully
compatible with the
research question.
A solid rationale is
provided and supported by
the literature.
No feasibility or
compatibility issues
Flow and
presentation
style
Unprofessional
throughout the
presentation.
No attempt to
engage the
audience.
Jumbled, repetitive
or lacking in flow.
Too fast or too
slow.
Cannot be followed
throughout the
presentation.
Full of unexplained
jargons.
The tone is mostly
casual.
No appropriate
terminology is
used.
A few basic
attempts are made
to engage the
audience.
Most information is
presented out of
sequence or
context.
The presentation
does not have a
smooth flow.
Professional tone in
some parts of the
presentation.
Some appropriate
terminologies are used
at times.
Some acronyms,
abbreviations, jargons
or terms are not
explained well.
Engages the audience
at times.
Logical flow between
different sections but
not within them (or
vice versa).
Mostly professional
throughout the
presentation.
Appropriate
terminologies are used
at most of the time
but a few undefined
terms are present.
Mostly engages the
audience.
Mostly flows
smoothly.
Well-paced in most
parts.
Professional tone
consistently all throughout
the presentation.
Use of appropriate
terminologies all
throughout the
presentation.
The audience is well-
engaged.
Flows logically and
smoothly.
Well-paced at all times or
all sections.
/10
The pace is not
appropriate to the
content e.g. too
fast on complex
content or too slow
on the basics.
Some sections are
well-paced but others
are very fast or slow.
Referencing No references
included.
Or all included
references are not
relevant or credible
sources of
information.
Basic references to
academic sources.
Many of the
references lack
credibility or
relevance.
The presentation
makes use of a
number of credible
relevant sources of
information.
Some claims are
unsupported or based
on low-quality
evidence.
Most references cited
are relevant and
credible.
A few (1-2) missing
sources of
information.
Or a few non-credible
sources of information
Relevant and credible
academic sources of
information are referenced
all throughout the
presentation.
/10
Total
/100
Overall Comments
The best thing about your presentation
One thing to focus on at the next presentation