You will be scored on the following criteria. I will add in weight for the group rankings as voted on by the class.
| Criterion | Weak | Adequate | Strong |
| The presentation engaged us, the audience, in active listening; i.e. it wasn't just a mini-lecture (or set of mini-lectures). | |||
| The presentation had a noticeable purpose, organization, and landmarks (e.g. transitions, conclusion, etc.). | |||
| The presentation was paced so that the audience could follow along easily. | |||
| The team showed clearly how to do these tricks, including obvious alternatives to major steps (e.g. "you can cut by highlighting & backspacing or by using the little scissors icon"). | |||
| The team explained the technical terms they used and the steps needed to do these tricks. Adequate support (for instance prepared documents to cut & paste, etc.) was provided to all members of the audience. | |||
| The team showed good teamwork skills in dividing the labor and supporting each other throughout the presentation; all team members were visibly involved--none were just holding up walls. | |||
| The presentation showed physical polish (confidence, evidence of rehearsal, good eye contact, avoidance of verbal distractors, avoidance of visible nervousness, no major computer glitches, etc.) | |||
| The presenters addressed questions and concerns accurately and effectively. | |||
| The handout was clear and attractively designed | |||
| The handout was coherently designed and executed. | |||
| The handout was correct and thorough enough that peers could consult it at 2 in the morning. | |||
| The memo was timely and thorough. | |||
| Individual team member evaluations were sent to the instructor by the deadline on the calendar. | |||
| Revised materials to post on the class web page were submitted in a timely fashion. | |||
| All written materials were free of execution errors. |