Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5K views

    Rubrics For Feasibility Defense

    Uploaded by

    Zhenie Velasco
    The document provides a rubric for evaluating oral presentations on feasibility studies for proposed restaurants. It rates presentations on a scale of 1 to 6 for introduction, organization, delivery, content, and response to questions. A score of 30 or higher is needed to pass. Panel members use the rubric to assess each presentation and provide an overall recommendation and comments for improvement.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rubrics For Feasibility Defense

    Uploaded by

    Zhenie Velasco
    5K views3 pages
    The document provides a rubric for evaluating oral presentations on feasibility studies for proposed restaurants. It rates presentations on a scale of 1 to 6 for introduction, organization, delivery, content, and response to questions. A score of 30 or higher is needed to pass. Panel members use the rubric to assess each presentation and provide an overall recommendation and comments for improvement.

    Original Title

    Rubrics for Feasibility Defense

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document provides a rubric for evaluating oral presentations on feasibility studies for proposed restaurants. It rates presentations on a scale of 1 to 6 for introduction, organization, delivery, content, and response to questions. A score of 30 or higher is needed to pass. Panel members use the rubric to assess each presentation and provide an overall recommendation and comments for improvement.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    5K views3 pages

    Rubrics For Feasibility Defense

    Uploaded by

    Zhenie Velasco
    The document provides a rubric for evaluating oral presentations on feasibility studies for proposed restaurants. It rates presentations on a scale of 1 to 6 for introduction, organization, delivery, content, and response to questions. A score of 30 or higher is needed to pass. Panel members use the rubric to assess each presentation and provide an overall recommendation and comments for improvement.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    University of Santo Tomas College of Education Department of Nutrition & Dietetics Food Service Systems II Semester: ____ Academic

    Year _____

    Rubrics for Feasibility Defense Evaluation


    Date: Name of Proposed Restaurant: Group No. ___ Year/Section ___

    I. ORAL PRESENTATION DEFENSE Instruction: Please encircle the number and check the key phrases that best describe the feasibility study.

    A. Introduction Emerging 1
    Comments: B. Organization

    Developing 3

    Well done 4
    Comments:

    Excellent 5 6

    Little or no introduction

    Interesting or engaging introduction

    Emerging 1
    Comments:

    Developing 2 3

    Well done 5

    Excellent 6

    Disorganized or poorly organized

    Well organized and easy to follow smooth transitions Comments:

    C. Delivery Emerging 1

    Developing 2

    Well done 5

    Excellent 6

    Manuscript was read or seemed memorized Speech was too slow/fast/soft Eye contact lacking or absent Delivery unsure, uncomfortable, stiff, unprepared

    Speech was clear, smooth and articulate Voice projection and spacing effective Eye contact appropriate, help connect to panelists Delivery comfortable, poised and prepared

    Comments:

    Comments:

    D. Content Emerging 1

    Developing 2

    Well done 5

    Excellent 6

    Paper and presentation highly technical for audience Terms undefined or minimally defined; background information lacking; or assumptions lacking Presentation deficient in evaluation and synthesis

    General audience can understand the paper presentation Key terms defined and necessary information provided Assumptions surfaced

    Comments:

    Presentation information evaluated and well synthesized Comments:

    E. Response to Questions Emerging 1 2

    Developing 3

    Well done 5

    Excellent 6

    Misunderstands questions ; sometimes can not answer questions Comments:

    Answers questions well with reference to own work; shows knowledge of subject Comments:

    Final Recommendation:
    Needs minor revision Needs major revision Fail TOTAL SCORE Pass with Distinction Excellent Pass/Well Done TOTAL SCORE

    Members of the Panel: ____________________ Print Name & Signature ____________________ Print Name & Signature ____________________ Print Name & Signature

    Faculty-In Charge:

    _____________________ Print Name & Signature

    Comments/Suggestions:

    You might also like