Skip to main content
sign in
Username
Password
forgot?
Sign up
Share
help_outline
help
Pricing
Request Info
Please enable JavaScript on your web browser
menu
iRubric: Group Speech: CaSH rubric
find rubric
Your browser does not support iframes.
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)
Your browser does not support iframes.
Desktop Mode
Mobile Mode
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:
Education
Types:
Presentation
Discuss this rubric
You may also be interested in:
More rubrics by this author
More Education rubrics
More Presentation rubrics
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 iRubric
tm
.
Copyright © 2024
Reazon Systems, Inc.
All rights reserved.
n60
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.