Assessment Overview
Total Points: 26 | Grade Weight: 10% | Length: 5-7 minutes
1. Clear Opening and Concluding Statements (2 points)
Complete (2): Video includes clear and well-structured opening statement where student introduces themselves, provides engaging introduction to topic, purpose, and main points, and concludes with concise summary or call-to-action, allowing audience to fully grasp video's content and purpose.
Incomplete (1): Video has some shortcomings in either student's introduction, opening statement, or concluding statement. May lack clear introduction of student, unclear or missing introduction to topic and main points, or incomplete or insufficient summary/call-to-action.
2. Work and Its Background Clearly Described (3 points)
Exceeds Expectations (3): Exceptional and engaging description of work and background, effectively introducing topic and field to general audience with no prior context. Includes state-of-the-art considerations and presents clear narrative highlighting relevance and potential impact. Surpasses expected level. {10/10}
Above Average (2.5): Solid and well-developed description of work and background, effectively introducing topic and field to general audience with no prior context. Includes relevant state-of-the-art considerations and conveys significance and potential impact. Above average expected level with room for small improvements. {8/10}
Sufficient (2): Some description of work and background, attempting to introduce topic and field to general audience with no prior context. Includes basic state-of-the-art considerations and provides basic understanding of significance and potential impact. Meets minimum requirements with some confusion or vagueness. {6/10}
3. Scientific Importance of the Work Well Discussed (3 points)
Exceeds Expectations (3): Exceptional and thorough discussion of scientific importance, clearly explaining relevance, novelty, and potential impact accessible to general audience. At bachelor level, so well-profiled that exceeds expectations. {10/10}
Above Average (2.5): Solid and well-developed discussion of scientific importance, effectively explaining relevance, novelty, and potential impact accessible to general audience. Room for small improvements but no major issues. {8/10}
Sufficient (2): Basic discussion of scientific importance, partially addressing relevance, novelty, and potential impact accessible to general audience. Somewhat addresses scientific significance and advances. Some confusion or vagueness that can be improved. {6/10}
4. Societal Importance of the Work Well Discussed (3 points)
Exceeds Expectations (3): Exceptional and comprehensive discussion of societal importance, how research addresses real-world challenges, benefits society, or contributes to broader societal goals. At bachelor level, well-profiled that exceeds expectations. {10/10}
Above Average (2.5): Solid and well-developed discussion of societal importance, effectively explaining how research addresses real-world challenges, benefits society, or contributes to broader societal goals. Room for improvement but no major issues. {8/10}
Sufficient (2): Satisfactory discussion of societal importance, explaining how research addresses real-world challenges, benefits society, or contributes to broader societal goals. Some confusion or vagueness that can be improved. {6/10}
5. Discussion of Ethical Issues (2 points)
Complete (2): Fully and coherently discussed. Provides comprehensive and thorough discussion of ethical issues associated with topic, addressing relevant considerations, potential consequences, and ethical frameworks, demonstrating strong understanding and analysis.
Incomplete (1): Brushed upon, could have been better stated. Partially discusses ethical issues associated with topic, but gaps or lack of depth in exploration of relevant considerations, potential consequences, or ethical frameworks, requiring further development or clarification.
6. Video Suitable for Non-Scientists (3 points)
Exceeds Expectations (3): Exceptionally well-suited for non-scientists, presenting complex concepts in clear and engaging manner. Effectively avoids jargon, uses relatable examples, and employs visual aids or analogies to ensure accessibility and understanding. Incredibly well-suited and creative. {10/10}
Above Average (2.5): Well-suited for non-scientists, effectively presenting complex concepts in clear and accessible manner. Minimizes jargon, provides explanations in plain language, and utilizes visual aids or relatable examples to enhance comprehension. Very suitable and appropriate with just minor notes. {8/10}
Sufficient (2): Adequately suited for non-scientists, presenting complex concepts in manner that is generally understandable. Avoids excessive jargon and provides explanations somewhat accessible to general audience. Suitable but clear room for improvement. {6/10}
7. Correct Amount of Details (Not Too Packed Nor Vague) (2 points)
Complete (2): Coherent and well-paced. Video effectively balances amount of details, providing comprehensive information that is neither overwhelming nor oversimplified, ensuring clarity and understanding for general audience.
Incomplete (1): In some instances approach is too vague or too detailed. Video partially addresses appropriate amount of details, either lacking sufficient information or presenting it in way that is too packed or vague, requiring further development or clarification.
8. Presentation of the Video (Sounds, Look) (3 points)
Exceeds Expectations (3): Exceptional presentation with student delivering clear and engaging performance. Speaking style is confident, articulate, and well-paced, accompanied by appropriate body language and visual aids. Overall production (sound and visual aspects) is polished and professional, surpassing expected level. {10/10}
Above Average (2.5): Solid presentation with student delivering clear and engaging performance. Speaking style is effective, displaying good articulation, pacing, and use of suitable body language and visual aids. Overall production (sound and visual aspects) meets or exceeds average expected level with just minor notes. {8/10}
Sufficient (2): Satisfactory presentation with student delivering decent performance. Speaking style is generally clear and understandable with only minor issues. Overall production (sound and visual aspects) meets basic requirements for clarity and coherence with clear room for improvement. {6/10}
9. Style of the Video Appropriate to Message (2 points)
Complete (2): Fully appropriate. Style of video is well-aligned with message, effectively conveying content through appropriate visual and narrative elements, enhancing overall understanding and engagement.
Needs Improvement (1): Somewhat appropriate but with room for improvement. Style partially matches message, but areas where improvements can be made to better align with and enhance understanding.
10. Graphics of the Video (3 points)
Exceeds Expectations (3): Exceptional graphic design demonstrating visually captivating and professional presentation. Visuals (animations, images, on-screen text) are visually appealing, effectively complementing content and enhancing overall understanding and engagement, surpassing expected level. {10/10}
Above Average (2.5): Solid graphic design with visually appealing and well-executed elements. Visuals (animations, images, on-screen text) are thoughtfully incorporated and enhance overall understanding and engagement, meeting or exceeding average expected level. {8/10}
Sufficient (2): Satisfactory graphic design with somewhat functional visuals. Visuals (animations, images, on-screen text) are decent support to content and contribute to overall understanding and engagement with clear room for improvement. {6/10}
