1.

Course Requirement: Oral Presentations

Evidence of Performance: Oral Presentation and Submission of Presentation Slides
Assessment Criteria: Rubrics

Content Mastery (50%) Presentation Style (30%) Layout and Design (20%)

41 - 50: The rapporteur shows exemplary understanding of 21 - 30: The rapporteur is confident and roams around the classroom 19 - 20: The presentation material is creatively made. It has all
the topic by giving several, concrete real-life examples.The when discussing to arouse interest and inspire participation from his pertinent parts such as the cover title, subheadings, and
rapporteur is able to eloquently express the concept using classmates. references. The transitions were seamless. The elements,
his own words. graphics and overall design are relevant to the topic at hand.

31 - 40: The rapporteur shows a strong understanding of 11 - 20: The rapporteur shows confidence by showing open body 16 - 18: The presentation material is somewhat creatively made.
the topic but gives only a few concrete real-life examples. gestures. He encourages students to listen attentively. However, he It has all pertinent parts such as the cover title, subheadings,
The rapporteur is somewhat eloquent in his discussions. fails to inspire participation from his audience. and references. The elements, graphics and overall design need
to be properly arranged to achieve a cohesive effect.

21 - 30: The rapporteur shows a good understanding of the 6 - 10: The rapporteur is somewhat confident during the presentation. 11 - 15: The presentation material was created with little to no
topic.However, he fails to provide effective, real-life He lacks the motivational prowess and does not engage his students creativity. It has all pertinent parts such as the cover title,
examples. The rapporteur is good at communicating his in the discussion. subheadings, and references. The transitions were distracting.
ideas but has a few dead airs and stammers. The elements, graphics and overall design are haphazardly put
together.

1 - 20: The rapporteur shows a poor understanding of the 1 - 5: The rapporteur shows no confidence. He shows no interest in 1 -10: The presentation material was created with no creativity.
topic. He was not able to provide examples and cannot engaging his students during his discussions. It lacks some of the pertinent parts such as the cover title,
expound using his own words the concepts at hand. subheadings, and references. The transitions were too
animated. The elements, graphics and overall design are
messily put together.

Rubric for Applying Literary Criticism Approaches

Criteria 4 - Advanced (90-100) 3 - Proficient (80-89) 2 - Basic (70-79) 1 - Emerging (60-69)
Understanding of the Demonstrates a thorough and insightful understanding Shows a good understanding of the literary Demonstrates a basic understanding of the Shows minimal or confused understanding of
Critical Approach of the selected literary criticism approach. Clearly and criticism approach. The explanation is clear critical approach but may miss some key aspects the literary criticism approach. Misinterprets
accurately explain its principles and application to the but may lack some depth or subtlety. or apply them inaccurately. or oversimplifies its principles.
Criteria 4 - Advanced (90-100) 3 - Proficient (80-89) 2 - Basic (70-79) 1 - Emerging (60-69)
text.
Applies the critical approach to the text in a nuanced Applies the critical approach effectively, The application of the critical approach is
Application to the Attempts to apply the critical approach, but the
and original way. Offers deep, textually supported providing clear and relevant insights. Some unclear, incorrect, or minimal. The analysis is
Text analysis is superficial or lacks coherence.
insights that reveal new dimensions of the work. points may be less developed. largely unsupported by the text.
Selects strong, relevant evidence from the text to Provides appropriate textual evidence to Uses some textual evidence, but it may be Provides little to no relevant textual evidence.
Use of Textual
support analysis. Quotations and examples are well- support most points. Quotations are relevant insufficient, vague, or not always directly Quotations may be absent, irrelevant, or
Evidence
integrated and enhance the argument. but may not be fully integrated. connected to the analysis. improperly used.
Demonstrates sophisticated critical thinking, making Shows solid critical thinking, with some Displays limited critical thinking. Connections to Shows minimal to no critical thinking.
Critical Thinking and connections between the text, the critical approach, connections to broader themes or contexts. broader themes or contexts are weak or Analysis lacks depth, and connections to
Insight and broader themes or contexts. Offers original Insights are clear but may be more underdeveloped. Insights are mostly surface- broader themes or contexts are absent or
insights. conventional. level. unclear.
The analysis is well-organized with a clear, logical The analysis is organized and generally The analysis is poorly organized, making it
Coherence and The analysis has some organizational structure
structure. Ideas flow smoothly, making the argument coherent, though there may be minor lapses difficult to follow. Ideas are scattered or
Organization but may be disjointed or unclear at times.
easy to follow. in structure or flow. incoherent.
Writing is polished, articulate, and free of errors. The Writing is unclear or confusing, with
Writing is clear and effective, with few Writing is understandable but may have
Writing Quality language is clear and sophisticated, enhancing the significant grammatical or mechanical errors
grammatical or mechanical errors. noticeable errors that affect clarity.
analysis. that hinder understanding.
This rubric provides a structured framework for assessing students' ability to apply different literary criticism approaches to a text, focusing on understanding, application, critical thinking, and writing quality.