oral presentation evaluation

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• How to prepare and...

How to prepare and deliver an effective oral presentation

• Related content
• Peer review
• Lucia Hartigan , registrar 1 ,
• Fionnuala Mone , fellow in maternal fetal medicine 1 ,
• Mary Higgins , consultant obstetrician 2
• 1 National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
• 2 National Maternity Hospital, Dublin; Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medicine and Medical Sciences, University College Dublin
• luciahartigan{at}hotmail.com

The success of an oral presentation lies in the speaker’s ability to transmit information to the audience. Lucia Hartigan and colleagues describe what they have learnt about delivering an effective scientific oral presentation from their own experiences, and their mistakes

The objective of an oral presentation is to portray large amounts of often complex information in a clear, bite sized fashion. Although some of the success lies in the content, the rest lies in the speaker’s skills in transmitting the information to the audience. 1

Preparation

It is important to be as well prepared as possible. Look at the venue in person, and find out the time allowed for your presentation and for questions, and the size of the audience and their backgrounds, which will allow the presentation to be pitched at the appropriate level.

See what the ambience and temperature are like and check that the format of your presentation is compatible with the available computer. This is particularly important when embedding videos. Before you begin, look at the video on stand-by and make sure the lights are dimmed and the speakers are functioning.

For visual aids, Microsoft PowerPoint or Apple Mac Keynote programmes are usual, although Prezi is increasing in popularity. Save the presentation on a USB stick, with email or cloud storage backup to avoid last minute disasters.

When preparing the presentation, start with an opening slide containing the title of the study, your name, and the date. Begin by addressing and thanking the audience and the organisation that has invited you to speak. Typically, the format includes background, study aims, methodology, results, strengths and weaknesses of the study, and conclusions.

If the study takes a lecturing format, consider including “any questions?” on a slide before you conclude, which will allow the audience to remember the take home messages. Ideally, the audience should remember three of the main points from the presentation. 2

Have a maximum of four short points per slide. If you can display something as a diagram, video, or a graph, use this instead of text and talk around it.

Animation is available in both Microsoft PowerPoint and the Apple Mac Keynote programme, and its use in presentations has been demonstrated to assist in the retention and recall of facts. 3 Do not overuse it, though, as it could make you appear unprofessional. If you show a video or diagram don’t just sit back—use a laser pointer to explain what is happening.

Rehearse your presentation in front of at least one person. Request feedback and amend accordingly. If possible, practise in the venue itself so things will not be unfamiliar on the day. If you appear comfortable, the audience will feel comfortable. Ask colleagues and seniors what questions they would ask and prepare responses to these questions.

It is important to dress appropriately, stand up straight, and project your voice towards the back of the room. Practise using a microphone, or any other presentation aids, in advance. If you don’t have your own presenting style, think of the style of inspirational scientific speakers you have seen and imitate it.

Try to present slides at the rate of around one slide a minute. If you talk too much, you will lose your audience’s attention. The slides or videos should be an adjunct to your presentation, so do not hide behind them, and be proud of the work you are presenting. You should avoid reading the wording on the slides, but instead talk around the content on them.

Maintain eye contact with the audience and remember to smile and pause after each comment, giving your nerves time to settle. Speak slowly and concisely, highlighting key points.

Do not assume that the audience is completely familiar with the topic you are passionate about, but don’t patronise them either. Use every presentation as an opportunity to teach, even your seniors. The information you are presenting may be new to them, but it is always important to know your audience’s background. You can then ensure you do not patronise world experts.

To maintain the audience’s attention, vary the tone and inflection of your voice. If appropriate, use humour, though you should run any comments or jokes past others beforehand and make sure they are culturally appropriate. Check every now and again that the audience is following and offer them the opportunity to ask questions.

Finishing up is the most important part, as this is when you send your take home message with the audience. Slow down, even though time is important at this stage. Conclude with the three key points from the study and leave the slide up for a further few seconds. Do not ramble on. Give the audience a chance to digest the presentation. Conclude by acknowledging those who assisted you in the study, and thank the audience and organisation. If you are presenting in North America, it is usual practice to conclude with an image of the team. If you wish to show references, insert a text box on the appropriate slide with the primary author, year, and paper, although this is not always required.

Answering questions can often feel like the most daunting part, but don’t look upon this as negative. Assume that the audience has listened and is interested in your research. Listen carefully, and if you are unsure about what someone is saying, ask for the question to be rephrased. Thank the audience member for asking the question and keep responses brief and concise. If you are unsure of the answer you can say that the questioner has raised an interesting point that you will have to investigate further. Have someone in the audience who will write down the questions for you, and remember that this is effectively free peer review.

Be proud of your achievements and try to do justice to the work that you and the rest of your group have done. You deserve to be up on that stage, so show off what you have achieved.

Competing interests: We have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: None.

• ↵ Rovira A, Auger C, Naidich TP. How to prepare an oral presentation and a conference. Radiologica 2013 ; 55 (suppl 1): 2 -7S. OpenUrl
• ↵ Bourne PE. Ten simple rules for making good oral presentations. PLos Comput Biol 2007 ; 3 : e77 . OpenUrl PubMed
• ↵ Naqvi SH, Mobasher F, Afzal MA, Umair M, Kohli AN, Bukhari MH. Effectiveness of teaching methods in a medical institute: perceptions of medical students to teaching aids. J Pak Med Assoc 2013 ; 63 : 859 -64. OpenUrl

How to Evaluate an Oral Presentation

How to Write a Speech Review

Evaluating an oral presentation is not difficult, because every oral presentation has key components that are crucial for the success of the presentation. Just consider the important factors such as confidence, quality, clarity and organization. Not sure exactly how to go about doing this? Read on and learn exactly how to analyze these important factors and come up with the most accurate evaluation possible.

Determine the confidence of the speaker. The speaker should be comfortable and easily connect with the audience. If a speaker acts uncomfortable or nervous, the presentation is not going well. However, if the speaker easily makes eye contact, invites audience participation and puts the audience at ease, this aspect of the presentation is a success.

Determine the quality of the information presented. The speaker should provide enough details to support the point of the presentation but not too many unnecessary details that may confuse or bore the audience.

Determine the level of clarity. The speaker should be easily able to convey the point he is trying to make. Vocabulary should be easy to understand, and all words should be spoken in a clear and fluent manner.

Determine the level of organization. Every presentation should have some sort of structure and organization, whether formal or informal. Simple things such as making sure there is a proper introduction and conclusion can go a long way in making the presentation a success.

• Creating a rubric based on the information in this article might be a useful tool when evaluating oral presentation.
• Don't forget about volume! A speaker could have all of the other aspects of a proper presentation, but it would all be in vain if no one was able to hear it. Make sure the entire audience is able to hear the speaker at all times.

Related Articles

Effective Communication Skills Objectives

How to Summarize a Presentation

How to Explain Technical Concepts

How to Do a Paper Review Presentation

Characteristics of a Good Speech

The Difference Between Effective and Ineffective Listening

How to Write an Introduction to an Analytical Essay

How to Write a Conclusion for PowerPoint Presentation

• Oral Presentation Rubic

Elizabeth Wolfenden has been a professional freelance writer since 2005 with articles published on a variety of blogs and websites. She specializes in the areas of nutrition, health, psychology, mental health and education. Wolfenden holds a bachelor's degree in elementary education and a master's degree in counseling from Oakland University.

Teaching & Learning

• Education Excellence
• Professional development
• Case studies
• Teaching toolkits
• MicroCPD-UCL
• Assessment resources
• Student partnership
• Generative AI Hub
• Community Engaged Learning
• UCL Student Success

Oral assessment

Oral assessment is a common practice across education and comes in many forms. Here is basic guidance on how to approach it.

1 August 2019

In oral assessment, students speak to provide evidence of their learning. Internationally, oral examinations are commonplace. 

We use a wide variety of oral assessment techniques at UCL.

Students can be asked to: 

• present posters
• use presentation software such as Power Point or Prezi
• perform in a debate
• present a case
• answer questions from teachers or their peers.

Students’ knowledge and skills are explored through dialogue with examiners.

Teachers at UCL recommend oral examinations, because they provide students with the scope to demonstrate their detailed understanding of course knowledge.

Educational benefits for your students

Good assessment practice gives students the opportunity to demonstrate learning in different ways. 

Some students find it difficult to write so they do better in oral assessments. Others may find it challenging to present their ideas to a group of people.  

Oral assessment takes account of diversity and enables students to develop verbal communication skills that will be valuable in their future careers.  

Marking criteria and guides can be carefully developed so that assessment processes can be quick, simple and transparent. 

How to organise oral assessment

Oral assessment can take many forms.

Audio and/or video recordings can be uploaded to Moodle if live assessment is not practicable.

Tasks can range from individual or group talks and presentations to dialogic oral examinations.

Oral assessment works well as a basis for feedback to students and/or to generate marks towards final results.

1. Consider the learning you're aiming to assess 

How can you best offer students the opportunity to demonstrate that learning?

The planning process needs to start early because students must know about and practise the assessment tasks you design.

2. Inform the students of the criteria

Discuss the assessment criteria with students, ensuring that you include (but don’t overemphasise) presentation or speaking skills.

Identify activities which encourage the application or analysis of knowledge. You could choose from the options below or devise a task with a practical element adapted to learning in your discipline.

3. Decide what kind of oral assessment to use

Options for oral assessment can include:

Assessment task

• Presentation
• Question and answer session.

Individual or group

If group, how will you distribute the tasks and the marks?

Combination with other modes of assessment

• Oral presentation of a project report or dissertation.
• Oral presentation of posters, diagrams, or museum objects.
• Commentary on a practical exercise.
• Questions to follow up written tests, examinations, or essays.

Decide on the weighting of the different assessment tasks and clarify how the assessment criteria will be applied to each.

Peer or staff assessment or a combination: groups of students can assess other groups or individuals.

4. Brief your students

When you’ve decided which options to use, provide students with detailed information.

Integrate opportunities to develop the skills needed for oral assessment progressively as students learn.

If you can involve students in formulating assessment criteria, they will be motivated and engaged and they will gain insight into what is required, especially if examples are used.

5. Planning, planning planning!

Plan the oral assessment event meticulously.

Stick rigidly to planned timing. Ensure that students practise presentations with time limitations in mind. Allow time between presentations or interviews and keep presentations brief.  

6. Decide how you will evaluate

Decide how you will evaluate presentations or students’ responses.

It is useful to create an assessment sheet with a grid or table using the relevant assessment criteria.

Focus on core learning outcomes, avoiding detail.

Two assessors must be present to:

• evaluate against a range of specific core criteria
• focus on forming a holistic judgment.

Leave time to make a final decision on marks perhaps after every four presentations. Refer to audio recordings later for borderline cases. 

7. Use peers to assess presentations

Students will learn from presentations especially if you can use ‘audio/video recall’ for feedback.

Let speakers talk through aspects of the presentation, pointing out areas they might develop. Then discuss your evaluation with them. This can also be done in peer groups.

If you have large groups of students, they can support each other, each providing feedback to several peers. They can use the same assessment sheets as teachers. Marks can also be awarded for feedback.

8. Use peer review

A great advantage of oral assessment is that learning can be shared and peer reviewed, in line with academic practice.

There are many variants on the theme so why not let your students benefit from this underused form of assessment?

This guide has been produced by the UCL Arena Centre for Research-based Education . You are welcome to use this guide if you are from another educational facility, but you must credit the UCL Arena Centre. 

Further information

More teaching toolkits  - back to the toolkits menu

[email protected] : contact the UCL Arena Centre

UCL Education Strategy 2016–21

Assessment and feedback: resources and useful links 

Six tips on how to develop good feedback practices  toolkit

Download a printable copy of this guide

Case studies : browse related stories from UCL staff and students.

Sign up to the monthly UCL education e-newsletter  to get the latest teaching news, events & resources.

Assessment and feedback events

Funnelback feed: https://search2.ucl.ac.uk/s/search.json?collection=drupal-teaching-learn... Double click the feed URL above to edit

Assessment and feedback case studies

Oral Presentation Rubric

About this printout

This rubric is designed to be used for any oral presentation. Students are scored in three categories—delivery, content, and audience awareness.

Teaching with this printout

More ideas to try, related resources.

Oral presentation and speaking are important skills for students to master, especially in the intermediate grades. This oral presentation rubric is designed to fit any topic or subject area. The rubric allows teachers to assess students in several key areas of oral presentation. Students are scored on a scale of 1–4 in three major areas. The first area is Delivery, which includes eye contact, and voice inflection. The second area, Content/Organization, scores students based on their knowledge and understanding of the topic being presented and the overall organization of their presentation. The third area, Enthusiasm/Audience Awareness, assesses students based on their enthusiasm toward the topic and how well they came across to their intended audience. Give students the oral presentation rubric ahead of time so that they know and understand what they will be scored on. Discuss each of the major areas and how they relate to oral presentation.

• After students have completed their oral presentations, ask them to do a self-assessment with the same rubric and hold a conference with them to compare their self-assessment with your own assessment.
• Provide students with several examples of oral presentations before they plan and execute their own presentation. Ask students to evaluate and assess the exemplar presentations using the same rubric.
• Students can do a peer evaluation of oral presentations using this rubric. Students meet in partners or small groups to give each other feedback and explain their scoring.
• Lesson Plans
• Student Interactives

Students research engineering careers and create poetry to understand the vocabulary of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).

Useful for a wide variety of reading and writing activities, this outlining tool allows students to organize up to five levels of information.

• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Teach the Earth the portal for Earth Education

From NAGT's On the Cutting Edge Collection

• Course Topics
• Atmospheric Science
• Biogeoscience
• Environmental Geology
• Environmental Science
• Geochemistry
• Geomorphology
• GIS/Remote Sensing
• Hydrology/Hydrogeology
• Oceanography
• Paleontology
• Planetary Science
• Sedimentary Geology
• Structural Geology
• Incorporating Societal Issues
• Climate Change
• Complex Systems
• Ethics and Environmental Justice
• Geology and Health
• Public Policy
• Sustainability
• Strengthening Your Department
• Career Development
• Strengthening Departments
• Student Recruitment
• Teacher Preparation
• Teaching Topics
• Biocomplexity
• Early Earth
• Earthquakes
• Hydraulic Fracturing
• Plate Tectonics
• Teaching Environments
• Intro Geoscience
• Online Teaching
• Teaching in the Field
• Two-Year Colleges
• Urban Students
• Enhancing your Teaching
• Affective Domain
• Course Design
• Data, Simulations, Models
• Geophotography
• Google Earth
• Metacognition
• Online Games
• Problem Solving
• Quantitative Skills
• Rates and Time
• Service Learning
• Spatial Thinking
• Teaching Methods
• Teaching with Video
• Undergrad Research
• Visualization
• Teaching Materials
• Two Year Colleges
• Departments
• Workshops and Webinars

Understanding What Our Geoscience Students Are Learning: Observing and Assessing Topical Resources

• ⋮⋮⋮ ×

Related Links

A guide to Professional Communications Projects , with examples and grading rubrics Resources about Speaking Effectively from the State Your Case project.

Assessment By Oral Presentation

What is assessment by oral presentation.

Oral presentations are often used to assess student learning from student individual and group research projects.

Oral Presentation Assessment Tips for Instructors:

• Oral Presentation Tips and Peer Evaluation Questions Laura Goering, Carleton College, developed these tips and student evaluation template for the Carleton College Perlman Center for Learning and Teaching .
• Oral Report Evaluation Rubric (Microsoft Word 56kB Jul6 07) from Mark France, Gallery Walk page.
• Information on developing scoring rubric .
• Information on developing instructional rubrics .
• If students are giving group presentations, the following Student Peer Assessment Rubric for Group Work (Microsoft Word 37kB May20 05) can be useful for having student assess the individuals in their groups.
• The Assessing Project Based Learning Starting Point website page uses rubrics to assess oral presentations.
• For an example of how to incorporate rubric in to a class, see Environmental Assessment course.
• Oral Presentation Assessment Examples - See how other courses have incorporated oral presentations. This link will take you to a browse listing example courses that have incorporated oral presentations.
• Effective Speaking Resources from the State Your Case project - A handful of useful resources about speaking effectively and giving successful oral presentations.  
• Professional Communications Projects - Learn more about this teaching method, which asks students to effectively communicate scientific information in a genre that professional scientists are expected to master, such as with scientific posters, conference proposals or oral presentations.

« Previous Page       Next Page »

THE CHALLENGE OF EVALUATING ORAL PRESENTATIONS

Dr. michelle harris biocore.

Grading student writing fairly and consistently is challenging. Grading student oral presentations fairly and consistently is downright scary. What if we don’t remember everything students said? How do we simultaneously listen carefully and jot down grading notes and think of good questions to ask them? Until recently, these and other similar nagging concerns kept me awake at night. As a lab instructor in the Biology Core Curriculum (Biocore) Program, I wanted to be able to evaluate students’ oral performance as fairly as I did their writing.

We used this rubric for the first time in Biocore 324 lab in fall 2006 and were very pleased with it for several reasons. First, creating the rubric forced us to reflect carefully on and clearly articulate our expectations for student oral PowerPoint presentations. We decided on five basic components of a good oral PowerPoint presentation: content, organization, teamwork (our lab students work in groups of three to four), visuals, and presentation mechanics. Second, we had to define criteria within each of these categories specific to key issues of scientific thinking.

For example, in the content area, we focused on criteria such as developing a clear biological rationale and a complete, concise hypothesis statement. Third, we had to define the relative importance of these five components; we agreed that the first two components (content and organization) were more important than visuals and mechanics, because they were the strongest evidence of students’ understanding of scientific concepts and their efforts toward communicating them. The scores that teams earned on these first three components were thus weighted more heavily in terms of the overall presentation grade. Finally, we made the rubric available to students as they developed their slide shows, so there were far fewer student questions regarding our expectations. Research teams told us that they frequently referred to the rubric as they prepared their slides and practiced their oral presentations.

During the students’ 15-minute presentations, each of us (the TA, two undergrad TAs, and I) had the rubric in front of us while we listened. We made quick notes about the rating we gave for each component and often wrote cryptic comments to ourselves regarding questions/clarifications to ask each team during the five-minute question-answer session following each presentation. Immediately after all teams had presented, my TAs and I had a private round-table discussion of our individual component ratings and came to a consensus regarding the final grade for each presentation. When necessary, we would refer to the PowerPoint slides that students had posted online in our class My WebSpace folder.

I found that the component ratings assigned by my TAs often closely matched my own. When we had a difficult time deciding on a final grade, we would refer to the rubric to remind ourselves of the objective guidelines already in place. I felt much more confident that each final grade was appropriate, and TAs were better able to target precisely their written comments to help students improve.

Biocore Oral Presentation Rubric Conversion to Letter Grade

Biocore Oral Presentation Rubric

Development and validation of the oral presentation evaluation scale (OPES) for nursing students

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, Republic of China.
• 2 Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, Republic of China.
• 3 Administration Center of Quality Management Department, Chang Gung Medical Foundation, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, Republic of China.
• 4 Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology; Administration Center of Quality Management Department, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, No.261, Wenhua 1st Rd., Guishan Dist, Taoyuan City, 333 03, Taiwan, Republic of China. [email protected].
• PMID: 35473710
• PMCID: PMC9040219
• DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03376-w

Background: Oral presentations are an important educational component for nursing students and nursing educators need to provide students with an assessment of presentations as feedback for improving this skill. However, there are no reliable validated tools available for objective evaluations of presentations. We aimed to develop and validate an oral presentation evaluation scale (OPES) for nursing students when learning effective oral presentations skills and could be used by students to self-rate their own performance, and potentially in the future for educators to assess student presentations.

Methods: The self-report OPES was developed using 28 items generated from a review of the literature about oral presentations and with qualitative face-to-face interviews with university oral presentation tutors and nursing students. Evidence for the internal structure of the 28-item scale was conducted with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA, respectively), and internal consistency. Relationships with Personal Report of Communication Apprehension and Self-Perceived Communication Competence to conduct the relationships with other variables evidence.

Results: Nursing students' (n = 325) responses to the scale provided the data for the EFA, which resulted in three factors: accuracy of content, effective communication, and clarity of speech. These factors explained 64.75% of the total variance. Eight items were dropped from the original item pool. The Cronbach's α value was .94 for the total scale and ranged from .84 to .93 for the three factors. The internal structure evidence was examined with CFA using data from a second group of 325 students, and an additional five items were deleted. Except for the adjusted goodness of fit, fit indices of the model were acceptable, which was below the minimum criteria. The final 15-item OPES was significantly correlated with the students' scores for the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension scale (r = -.51, p < .001) and Self-Perceived Communication Competence Scale (r = .45, p < .001), indicating excellent evidence of the relationships to other variables with other self-report assessments of communication.

Conclusions: The OPES could be adopted as a self-assessment instrument for nursing students when learning oral presentation skills. Further studies are needed to determine if the OPES is a valid instrument for nursing educators' objective evaluations of student presentations across nursing programs.

Keywords: Evaluation; Nurse educators; Nursing students; Oral presentation; Scale development.

© 2022. The Author(s).

• Communication
• Factor Analysis, Statistical
• Self-Assessment
• Students, Nursing*

Self- and Peer Assessment of Oral Presentation in Advanced Chinese Classrooms: An Exploratory Study

• First Online: 13 April 2017

Cite this chapter

• Dan Wang 7  

Part of the book series: Chinese Language Learning Sciences ((CLLS))

1393 Accesses

1 Citations

Self- and peer assessment allows students to play a greater role in the assessment process. Twenty-one non-heritage undergraduate students who took the Advanced Chinese course at Duke University were involved in a project on self- and peer assessment of oral presentations. The project included rubric designing, training, practice, observation, evaluation, discussion, survey, and feedback. The assessment components were designed by the instructor and the students collaboratively during the first week of the course. They included content and organization of presentation, vocabulary and grammar, fluency and voice, accuracy of pronunciation, posture, and support. In addition to scoring for each of these components, the students were also asked to provide written comments on their own presentation and those of their peers. Self-, peer, and instructor assessments were analyzed and compared quantitatively and qualitatively. The results showed that the practice and discussion in the training session had a positive effect on the accuracy of students’ self- and peer assessment. Over 90% of the students liked participating in the assessment process and thought the self- and peer assessment conducive to their Chinese language learning. This study highlights the potential pedagogical benefits of involving students in assessment at both the cognitive and affective levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adams, C., & King, K. (1995). Towards a framework for student self-assessment. Innovation in Education and Training International, 32, 336–343.

Article   Google Scholar  

AlFallay, I. (2004). The role of some selected psychological and personality traits of the rater in the accuracy of self- and peer-assessment. System, 32, 407–425.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1989). The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6, 14–25.

Birenbaum, M., & Dochy, F. (Eds.). (1996). Alternatives in assessment of achievement, learning processes and prior knowledge . Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Google Scholar  

Chen, Y. M. (2006). Peer and self-assessment for English oral performance: A study of reliability and learning benefits. English Teaching and Learning, 30 (4), 1–22.

Cotteral, S. (2002). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT Journal, 54 (2), 109–117.

Davidson, F., & Henning, G. (1985). A self-rating scale of English difficulty. Language Testing, 2, 164–178.

Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1997). The present, the past and the future of achievement testing and performance assessment. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 415–432.

Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovation in Education and Training International, 32, 175–187.

Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 20 (3), 289–300.

Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. Modern Language Journal, 86, 562–570.

Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59 (1), 31–39.

Hughes, I. E., & Large, B. (1993). Assessment of students’ oral communication skills by staff and peer groups. New Academic, 2 (3), 10–12.

Kitano, K. (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 85, 549–566.

Kwan, K., & Leung, R. (1996). Tutor versus peer group assessment of student performance in a simulation training exercise. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 205–214.

Lindholm-Leary, K., & Borsato, G. (2002). Impact of two-way immersion on students’ attitudes toward school and college. Eric Digest . EDO-FL-02-01.

Miller, L., & Ng, R. (1994). Peer assessment of oral language proficiency. In Perspectives: Working papers of the department of English , City Polytechnic of Hong Kong (Vol. 6, pp. 41–56).

Morton, L., Lemieux, C., Diffey, N., & Awender, M. (1999). Determinants of withdrawal from the bilingual career track when entering high school. Guidance and Counseling, 14, 1–14.

Mowl, G., & Pain, R. (1995). Using self and peer assessment to improve students’ essay writing: A case study from geography. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32 (4), 324–335.

Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Educational assessment of students (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal, 83, 23–34.

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you leaning a second language? Motivational orientation and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50 (1), 57–85.

O’Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers . New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19 (2), 109–131.

Pond, K., Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer assessment. Innovation in Education and Training International, 32, 314–323.

Rolfe, T. (1990). Self- and peer-assessment in the ESL curriculum. In G. Brindley (Ed.), The second language curriculum in action . Research series 6. NCETR. Sydney: University of Macquarie.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59 (1), 23–30.

Sambell, K., & McDowell, L. (1998). The value of self and peer assessment to the developing lifelong learner. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning—Improving students as learners (pp. 56–66). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19 (1), 69–75.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research described in this paper was conducted when I worked at Department of Asian and Middle East Studies, Duke University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Wang .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Dongbo Zhang

Department of Counseling Educational Psychology, and Special Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Chin-Hsi Lin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Wang, D. (2017). Self- and Peer Assessment of Oral Presentation in Advanced Chinese Classrooms: An Exploratory Study. In: Zhang, D., Lin, CH. (eds) Chinese as a Second Language Assessment. Chinese Language Learning Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4089-4_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4089-4_13

Published : 13 April 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-4087-0

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-4089-4

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Change Number: 2024-0304 Effective Date: 03/04/2024

Oral Presentations and Proposals

D-1 Introduction

Oral presentations provide offerors an opportunity to substitute or augment written information. You can conduct oral presentations in person or via video teleconference. Pre-recorded videotaped presentations do not constitute an oral presentation since it does not represent a real-time exchange of information. However, they may be included in offeror submissions, when appropriate.

Oral presentations may be beneficial in a variety of acquisitions. They are most useful when the requirements are clear and complete and are stated in performance or functional terms. Oral presentations are ideal for gathering information related to how qualified the offeror is to perform the work, how well the offeror understands the work, and how the offeror will approach the work.

D-2 Scope of the Oral Presentation

Before you can decide if oral presentations are appropriate for a given acquisition, you must select the evaluation factors and subfactors. Then decide whether the information you need to evaluate these criteria can be better presented orally or in writing or through a combination of both means.

You cannot incorporate oral statements in the contract by reference, so any information you want to be made part of the contract needs to be submitted in writing. At a minimum, the offeror must submit certifications, representations, and a signed offer sheet (including any exceptions to the Government’s terms and conditions) in writing. Additionally, as a rule of thumb, the offeror must submit other hard data ("facts"), such as pricing or costing data and contractual commitments, as part of the written proposal.

Oral presentations can convey information in such diverse areas as responses to sample tasks, understanding the requirements, experience, and relevancy of past performance.

Require offerors to submit their briefing materials in advance of the presentations. This will allow Government attendees an opportunity to review the materials and prepare any associated questions.

D-3 Request for Proposal Information

If oral presentations are appropriate, you must notify offerors in the RFP that the Government will use oral presentations to evaluate and select the contractor. The proposal preparation instructions must contain explicit instructions and guidance regarding the extent and nature of the process that will be used. Discourage elaborate presentations since they may detract from the information being presented. At a minimum, include the following information in the RFP:

The types of information the offeror must address during the oral presentations and how they relate to the evaluation criteria,

The required format and content of the presentation charts and any supporting documentation,

Any restrictions on the number of charts or the number of bullets per chart and how you will handle material that does not comply with these restrictions,

The required submission date for the presentation charts and/or materials,

The approximate timeframe when the oral presentations will be conducted and how you will determine the order of the offerors’ presentations,

Whether any rescheduling will be permitted if an offeror requests a change after the schedule has been established,

The total amount of time each offeror will have to conduct their oral presentation,

Who must make the presentation and a requirement that the offeror provide a list of names and position titles of the presenters,

Whether the presentation will be video or audio taped,

The location of the presentation site and a description of the site and resources available to the offeror,

Any rules and/or prohibitions regarding equipment and media,

How you will treat documents or information referenced in the presentation material but never presented orally,

Any limitations on Government-Offeror interactions during and after the presentation,

Whether the presentation will constitute discussions (see Figure 3-3),

Whether you will use the information in the oral presentation solely for source selection purposes or whether such information will become part of the contract (which will require a subsequent written submission of that information), and

Whether the offeror should include any cost/price data in the presentation.

D-4 Timing and Sequencing

You can conduct oral presentations either before or after establishing the competitive range. Where oral presentations are the only means of proposal submission, they must be presented by all offerors. If you conduct the oral presentations prior to establishing the competitive range, you must be careful they do not result in discussions.

Since preparing and presenting an oral presentation involves time and expense, you do not want to require offerors who are not likely to be serious candidates for award to have to conduct oral presentations. This can be an important consideration with small businesses. When this is a concern, establish the competitive range prior to oral presentations and clearly articulate in the RFP the methodology for doing so.

The PCO will often draw lots to determine the sequence of the offerors’ presentations. The time between the first and the last presentation should be as short as possible to minimize any advantage to the offerors that present later.

D-5 Time Limits

Establish a total time limit for each offeror’s presentation. It is not advisable to limit the time for individual topics or sections within the presentation; this detail is the presenter’s responsibility. If you are planning a question and answer session, exclude it from the allotted time and set a separate time limit for it.

There is no ideal amount of time to be allotted. Make this decision using prudent business judgment based upon the complexity of the acquisition and your own (or others’) experience and lessons learned.

D-6 Facility

Usually you will want to conduct the presentations at a facility you can control. This helps guard against surprises and ensures a more level playing field. However, nothing precludes you from conducting an oral presentation at an offeror's facility. This may be more efficient if site visits or other demonstrations are part of the source selection process.

If you are using a Government-controlled facility, make it available for inspection and, if warranted, a practice session. Allowing offerors to get acquainted with the facility will help ensure that it does not detract from the presentation content.

D-7 Recording the Presentations

Having an exact record of the presentation could prove useful both during the evaluation process and in the event of a protest or litigation. You can record the oral presentations using a variety of media; e.g., videotapes, audio tapes, written transcripts, or a copy of the offeror’s briefing slides or presentation notes. The SSA is responsible for determining the method and level of detail of the record.

If you use videotaping, allow for the natural behavior of the presenters. If slides or view graphs are used, the camera should view both the podium and screen at the same time. Place the microphones so that all communications can be recorded clearly and at adequate volume. Every effort should be made to avoid letting the recording become the focus of the presentation.

The recording, which is considered source selection information, will become part of the official record. Provide a copy to the offeror and seal and securely store the master copy of the recording to ensure there are no allegations of tampering in the event of a protest or court action.

D-8 Government Attendance

The PCO should chair every presentation. All of the Government personnel involved in evaluating the presentations should attend every presentation.

D-9 Presenters

The offeror’s key personnel who will perform or personally direct the work being described should conduct their relevant portions of the presentations. Key personnel include project managers, task leaders, and other in-house staff of the offeror’s, or their prospective key subcontractors’ organizations. This will avoid the oral presentation becoming the domain of a professional presenter, which would increase costs, detract from the advantages of oral presentations, and adversely affect small businesses.

D-10 Reviewing the Ground Rules

Prior to each presentation, the PCO shall review the ground rules with the attendees. This includes discussing any restrictions on Government-Offeror information exchanges, information disclosure rules, documentation requirements, and housekeeping items. These ground rules should also be included in the RFP.

If you are using a quiz as part of your evaluation, the PCO needs to discuss the related ground rules. For example, can the offeror caucus or contact outside sources by cell phone before answering?

Avoid too much control and regulation since it will inhibit the exchange of information. However, if you intend to avoid discussions, the PCO should control all exchanges during the presentation. If conducting oral presentations after opening discussions, you must comply with FAR 15.306 and 15.307.

D-11 Evaluation of Presentations

Evaluations should be performed immediately after each presentation. Using preprinted evaluation forms will help the evaluators collect their thoughts and impressions. Remember, even if you use preprinted forms, evaluators have to provide the rationale for their conclusions.

AFARS Parts

Afars appendix.

• Data Initiatives
• Regulations
• Smart Matrix
• Regulations Search
• Acquisition Regulation Comparator (ARC)
• Large Agencies
• Small Agencies
• CAOC History
• CAOC Charter
• Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC)
• Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
• Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)

ACQUISITION.GOV

An official website of the General Services Administration

Popular search terms:

No results found for “ ”.

Search another word or try popular search words.

Research and Impact Day 2024: Event Recap

April 30, 2024

Thank you to all who attended and participated in this year’s Research and Impact Day . Every year, this flagship event provides an opportunity for students to showcase their important work, hear from experts in the field, and connect with our fellow IHPME community members.

The theme for this year was “Navigating the Future: The Role of AI in Transformative Healthcare.” Attendees engaged with poster and oral presentations from students across program disciplines that focused on the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare systems and delivery models.

Programming highlights included an expert panel discussion, featuring speakers who shared their insights on how AI is revolutionizing healthcare and a keynote address by Dr. Muhammad Mamdani, Vice President of Data Science and Advanced Analytics at Unity Health Toronto and Director of the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research and Education in Medicine (T-CAIREM).

Student Awards

Please join us in congratulating the following student award winners:

Oral Presentations AM

• Health Equity: Adom Bondzi-Simpson
• A.I. and Machine Learning: Jethro Kwong
• Global Health & Climate Change: Anam Shahil-Feroz
• Health Systems Research: Katherine Sawicka
• Health Policy: Rafael Miranda
• Epidemiology: Sean Ong

Oral Presentations PM

• Health Equity: Michael Geurguis
• A.I. and Machine Learning: Chloe Wong
• Health Systems Research: Carly Butkowsky
• Health Economics: Armaan Malhotra
• Health Informatics: Anam Shahil-Feroz
• Epidemiology: Omri Arbiv
• Maureen Dixon Award: Katherine Sawicka
• Robert Duff Barron Award: Guan Wang

MSc – HSR, QIPS and SLI (poster)

Leonet Reid

PhD – HSR Eugene Vayda

Pratyasha Acharya

MSc Clin Epi – GSU Poster Award

Caroline Cristofaro

PhD Clin Epi (Gillian Hawker Poster Award)

Kristel Leung

2024 Research and Impact Day Sponsors

Our thanks to this year’s sponsors for their generosity, which allowed us to have another opportunity to showcase our students’ work.

Gold Sponsors:

• Canadian Centre for Health Economics (CCHE)
• Dalla Lana School of Public Health
• Health System Performance Network (HSPN)
• Closing the Gap Healthcare
• Home Care Ontario

Silver Sponsors:

• The Centre for Sexual and Gender Minority Health Research at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health
• The Wilson Centre

Thank you to our volunteers!

Finally, we would like to extend our gratitude to our volunteers for their invaluable contributions to Research & Impact Day’s success. Your dedication, enthusiasm and hard work played an instrumental role in ensuring the event was a positive experience for all involved.

See you all for Research & Impact Day 2025!

Related News

IHPME student Dr. Rebekah Neckoway Appointed Chief Medical Officer of Matawa Health Co-operative

IHPME doctoral student awarded the Adel S. Sedra Distinguished Graduate Award

April 26, 2024

Public Trust Crucial for Use of Administrative Health Data in Identifying Future Health Risks  

March 6, 2024

Faculty / Research

In Memoriam: Dr. Robin McLeod

February 14, 2024

New Funding Program Inspired by IHPME Students and Faculty Supports Student Research and Patient Partnerships 

January 24, 2024

Faculty / Research / Students

IHPME Student Awarded Prestigious Rhodes Scholarship 

December 19, 2023

Awards / Education / Students

Sign up for IHPME Connect.

Keep up to date with IHPME’s News & Research, Events & Program, Recognition, e-newsletter.

Subscribe to Connect Newsletter

Please provide your Name, use N/A for the field you wish to leave empty.

Please provide your email address you wish to subscribe.

Do not change or modify this field, required for Power Automate. Do not modify condition Logic Either

Get in Contact

Communications.

Marielle Boutin Email Address: ihpme.communications@​utoronto.ca