Skip to main content
iRubric: Group Speech: CaSH rubric

iRubric: Group Speech: CaSH rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Group Speech: CaSH 
Rubric Code: ZXXX6A6
By AmyKu7
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Education  
Type: Presentation  
Grade Levels: (none)

Powered by iRubric Communication Theory
  Poor

1 pts

Fair

3 pts

Good

5 pts

States the purpose.

Poor

The communication theory is not evident or is barely evident.
Fair

The communication theory is apparent.
Good

The communication theory is clear and captures the listeners' attention.
Organization of content.

Poor

The content lacks organization; transitions are abrupt and distracting, and the material jumps around without staying linear.
Fair

The organization of the content was congruent; transitions are adequate.
Good

The ccontent was organized logicvally with fluid transitions to capture and to hold the listener's attention throughout the entire group speech.
Supports ideas.

Poor

The majority of the ideas presented were not supported by additional information, explanation, or examples.
Fair

The basic ideas were presented so the listener could understand the premise of the presentation; however, details and examples were average.
Good

Important details and examples added interest and depth to the group speech; the infomation given worked to connect the listener to the communication theory presented.
Incorporates Application Processes.

Poor

Stories and examples given in the speech were not pertinent, were unrelated, were difficult to grasp, or were missing.
Fair

Stories and examples given were related to the speech on an adequate level.
Good

Relevant examples or stories work to interest and to inform the listener; they furthered the speech's main ideas in communication theory.
Dress.

Poor

Student(s) in the group speech were not dressed professionally.
Fair

Student(s) in the group speech were dressed in an adequate professional style.
Good

Students presenting looked professional.
Demonstrates awareness for listener

Poor

Presentation did not allow for student understanding because of pacing, confusing information, volume, etc.
Fair

Speakers' word choices, explanations, pacing, information, and notes were appropriate for each point addressed.
Good

Choices in language, delivery, notes-giving, pacing, information, and visual aiding blend together to heighten listener engagement and connection to the topic.
Demonstrates complexity of topic.

Poor

Group speech is surfacey and doesn't address the complexities of the information posed.
Fair

Students speaking have dug into the richness that encompasses their communication theory.
Good

Students' use of variation in their delivery styles complement the complexity of the material and serve to engage the listener.
Voice.

Poor

All speakers in the group provide adequate vocalization. Some inconsistencies may exist with volume, pacing, pronunciation, etc.
Ums exist.
Fair

Speakers use few or no Ums and encourage audience engagement; proper pacing of voice is used with adequately-engaging vocal mannerisms.
Good

Speakers do not use Ums; the speakers control their speeds, tones, and volumes and use inflection and emphasizing mannerisms vocally to entice audience engagement.
Comfortability.

Poor

Eye contact is lacking from the group; energy flags. Lack of guidance for audience based upon speakers' interation with listeners.
Fair

Eye contact and physicality is adequately natural and fluid.
Good

Eye contact, physicality, gestures, and so on demonstrate speaker energy and interest in the presented topic; guides listeners from point to point with ease.
Mechanics.

Poor

Present in the speech are fiddling, inability to answer questions, failure to prepare, visible signs of nervousness.
Fair

Presentation is adequately free of fiddling and visible signs of nervousness. Questions are answered adequately.
Good

No distracting behaviors are present; questions are handled professionally.
Error-free.

Poor

Group speech contains errors: vocally, in visual aid, etc.
Fair

Group speech contains 1 error or fewer (vocally or in the visual aid).
Good

Group speech contains no errors (vocally or in the visual aid).
Value.

Poor

Speech was of little lasting academic value to the student audience based on information presented.
Fair

Speech was of adequate lasting academic value to the students based on information presented.
Good

Speech was of great academic value based on information presented.
Collaboration.

Poor

Students' collaboration on speech materials was imbalanced or displayed a lack in informational areas. Not all material was properly addressed.
Fair

Students' collaboration on speech materials was adequate; most information was given and was received.
Good

Students' collaboration on speech materials was exemplary because the information given and received was communicated academically and with purpose.
Planning.

Poor

Student collaborative planning was not entirely evident; gaps in the presentation were noticeable, and there was a lack of congruency.
Fair

Student collaborative planning was moderately evident. Attempts at congruency were apparent, but the speech evaded seamlessness.
Good

Student collaborative planning was apparent; the speakers worked as a team to execute the speech purpse, and the speech was seamless in its execution.
Practicing.

Poor

This speech did not appear to be well-practiced.
Fair

This speech appeared to be moderately-practiced and could have benefited from further practice time.
Good

This speech was obviously practiced and was polished.
Visual aid.

Poor

The visual aid was hard to follow, was lacking, was deficient in some area(s). It did not connect congruently to the speech itself.
Fair

The visual aid was adequate and connected averagely to the speech material given.
Good

The visual aid was superb in the way that it and the speech underscored each other to
Professionalism.

Poor

Students did not take the speech seriously and were stalling for time or had some other deficiencies.
Fair

Students were moderately professional in their handling of the speech material.
Good

Students handled their speech completely professionally.
No reading unless quotes.

Poor

Material from speech was read from visual aid or from prompts; speech was not as extemporaneous as it should have been.
Fair

Some material in the speech was presented extemporaneously; some was not.
Good

All material, unless quoted, was presented extemporaneously.
Prompts.

Poor

Prompts were used obviously and distracted from speech material. More practice would have definitely helped.
Fair

Prompts were used, and the distraction from them was moderate. Group could have benefited from more practice using prompts.
Good

Prompts used were not distracting and were well-enough rehearsed that they provided a seamless delivery and engagement with the audience.
Time

Poor

The group speech fell short or went too long over the window of 17-23 minutes.
Fair

The group speech made the timeframe window but was obviously trying to lengthen or to shorten the speech length to accommodate the time requirement.
Good

The group speech made the timeframe of 17-23 minutes without stretching or truncating the speech to accommodate that timeframe.




Subjects:


Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

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

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

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

Publish

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

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

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.
n232