Oral Defense Reflection Guidelines and Rubric Overview You will prepare a written document reflecting on you’re the Power point presentation, including the strengths and areas for improvement and the benefits of an oral defense. For additional details, please refer to the Oral Defense Reflection Guidelines and Rubric document in the Assignment Guidelines and Rubrics section of the course. You will prepare a written document reflecting on a general power point presentation, including the strengths and areas for improvement and the benefits of an oral defense. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What were the strengths of that presentation? How could the presentation have been improved? What is the benefit of authoring and delivering the presentation? What will you take away from the experience? What did you notice about your peer’s presentation? How did your questioning techniques affect the peer’s live oral defense? Guidelines for Submission: Your written submission should follow these formatting guidelines: double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, one-inch margins, and discipline-appropriate citations. Page length requirements: 1–2 pages (excluding title page). This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information, review these instructions. Instructor Feedback: Students can find their feedback in the Grade Center. Critical Elements Oral Defense – Strengths Oral Defense – Areas for Improvement Exemplary (100%) Meets “Proficient” criteria and comprehensively explores strengths, providing specific examples to illustrate Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates insight in identification Proficient (85%) Reflects on oral defense and identifies own strengths Needs Improvement (55%) Minimally reflects on oral defense and minimally explores strengths Not Evident (0%) Does not reflect on oral defense, identifying strengths Reflects on oral defense and explores weaknesses and areas for improvement Minimally reflects on oral defense, weaknesses, and areas for improvement Does not reflect on oral defense, identifying weaknesses or areas for improvement Value 15 15 Oral Defense – Benefits Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides specific examples Describes value of authoring and delivering the presentation Reflection on Peer’s Oral Defense Meets “Proficient” criteria and highlights key points of peer’s oral defense Reflects on peer’s oral defense and identifies peer’s strengths and areas for improvement Description of the value of authoring and delivering the presentation is insufficient Reflects on peer’s oral defense and identifies peer’s strengths and areas for improvement; however, evaluation is limited or too general Does not describe the value of authoring and delivering the presentation Does not reflect on peer’s oral defense 20 20 Impact of Questions on Peer’s Defense Articulation of Response Meets “Proficient” criteria and gives examples of questions asked that benefited peer’s presentation Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, and syntax and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format Explains the impact of own questioning techniques during peer’s oral defense Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, or syntax Explains the impact of own questioning techniques during peer’s oral defense, but explanation is minimal Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, or syntax that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Did not explain the impact of own questioning techniques during peer’s oral defense 15 Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling or syntax that prevent understanding of ideas 15 Earned Total 100%
