Skip to main content
iRubric: Oral Argument rubric

iRubric: Oral Argument rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Students will present an argument on the admissibility of certain evidence in a criminal prosecution. They will be assessed on content and delivery.
Rubric Code: H7A69C
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Law  
Type: Presentation  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Powered by iRubric Argumentative Presentation Grading
This score only reflects the speech itself; not the written work.
  Excellent

10 pts

Good

8 pts

Fair

5 pts

Needs Improvement

2 pts

Content/Organization
Organization and Clarity
10 pts

Use of transition sentences, easy-to-follow order, sensible order of the presentation

Excellent

Main points work and are clearly distinguished with supporting details. Transitions are effectively used for coherent movement from point to point.
Good

General organization wasn't clear or well-developed. Transitions were okay, but not as unique or distinct as the could be.
Fair

The elements of the argument lacked detail to the extent that some argumentative impact was compromised. Transitions need work.
Needs Improvement

The argument was difficult to follow due to a lack of organization. Little detail was given to support the main points. Difficult to identify introduction, body, and conclusion.
Presentation of Client's Position
10 pts

Logical reasoning and support to claim (statistics, facts, expert testimony-quotes-, etc...)

Excellent

Presents sound arguments to support major claim. Arguments are supported with sufficient, relevant and valid evidence. Addressed oppositional arguments in a fair and persuasive manner.
Good

Some arguments are sufficiently supported but some unsupported. Minor reasoning present. Oppositional argument somewhat addressed. Most sources are credible and cited aloud.
Fair

Arguments lack some relevant and solid evidence. Credibility of sources and/or information is questionable. Oppositional arguments not present or not very apparent. Less than two sources are credible and/or cited aloud.
Needs Improvement

Arguments lack relevant and valid support. Information is incorrect and/or outdated. Sources either aren't credible or not cited in presentation.
Conclusion
10 pts

ACTION STEP

Excellent

Alerted panel to the argument conclusion. The speaker summarized the main points, tied back to the introduction to bring the argument full circle, and left the panel with a specific call to action and a powerful clincher.
Good

Alerted panel to the argument conclusion. The speaker recapped main points but missed at least one key component of conclusion.
Fair

Ending was weak or not present; the speaker concluded the argument in a disorganized fashion. Two or more important components were not present.
Needs Improvement

No conclusion; Ended suddenly. Most parts of conclusion were missing.
Delivery
Voice/ Eye Contact
10 pts

Loud, confident speaking voice, articulation and verbal fillers (um & like)

Excellent

Natural variation of vocal characteristics (pace, pitch, power, pauses, articulation) in Standard English to heighten interest and match message appropriately. Few, if any, verbal fillers.

Consistently and effectively used eye contact to establish rapport with panel. Rarely used speaker notes and and showed interaction with panel.
Good

Some limited variation of vocal characteristics. Use of pace, pitch, power and pauses seemed inconsistent at times. Some verbal fillers.

The speaker looked up occasionally during the speech. Some use of speaker notes. Seemed a bit disengaged from panel for short periods of time.
Fair

The student could be heard most of the time but at certain points were inaudible and/or inarticulate. Little pitch variation. Pacing was too slow/fast. Verbal fillers were noticable and frequent.

Obvious use of speaker notes. Seems disengaged from panel for noticeable periods of time.
Needs Improvement

Audience had difficulty hearing and/or understanding much of the speech due to monotone or inappropriate variation of vocal characteristics. Inconsistent with verbal message. Excessive fluency errors interfered with message comprehension. Excessive use of vocalized fillers.

The speaker seldom looked at the panel. Reads speech from notes. Avoided eye contact with panel. Only occasional and sporadic glances.
Questions
10 pts

Asking and answering questions and panel participation.

Excellent

Speaker satisfactorily addresses questions from the panel.
Good

Speaker gets slightly uncomfortable with questions from panel or cannot easily formulate an answer.
Fair

Very uncomfortable with questions from panel.
Needs Improvement

Cannot answer questions from panel.



Keywords:
  • argumentative, speech, presentation







Do more with this rubric:

Preview

Preview this rubric.

Edit

Modify this rubric.

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.


Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.



Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n202