Scoring Rubric for Master of Science Thesis Defense (College of Marine Science) – (M.S.

Outcome 3)

Student________________________________ Date_______________ Committee Member______________________________

Circle the appropriated boxes in each category. Each student’s Thesis Defense will be scored in five categories: Oral Presentation,
Visual Presentation, Scientific Knowledge, Response to Questions from the General Audience, and Response to Questions from the
Thesis Committee. The committee’s ranking will be based upon a five point scale (5 = Exemplary, 4 = Strong, 3 = Competent, 2 =
Marginal, 1 = Unacceptable). The minimum successful score will be “Competent” or better from a majority of the Committee, with
no score being “Unacceptable”.

Oral Presentation Visual Presentation Scientific Knowledge Response to Response to

Questions from Questions from
General Audience Thesis Committee
5 – Exemplary

All supporting visual

Presentation delivered Provides substantial,
aids (slides,
in a highly professional well-chosen evidence Responds incisively
PowerPoint, etc.) were Responds incisively and
manner; confident in (research or textual and directly to the
designed in a highly directly to the questions
material and able to citations) to support questions asked.
professional manner; asked. Responses to
communicate principles scientific concepts. Responses to questions
visual aids supported questions are specific,
clearly; precise diction Demonstrates high are specific,
the oral presentation defendable, and
and syntax; clear knowledge of defendable, and
closely, and were complex.
command of Standard concepts and complex.
clear, concise, and
English. terminology.
necessary.
4 – Strong

Visual aids were

Presentation was Most responses are Most responses are
generally well- Provides sufficient
coherently arranged; direct and relevant to direct and relevant to
designed, and and appropriate
scientific principals and the questions asked. the questions asked.
communicated the evidence to support
results were effectively Responses to question Responses to question
information desired; scientific claims, and
communicated; are more general, but are more general, but
Some of the visual makes effort to place
occasionally difficult to still accurate; analyses still accurate; analyses
aids were unnecessary scientific findings in
follow or awkward; goes beyond the goes beyond the
and could have been context.
some wordiness. obvious. obvious.
eliminated.
3 - Competent

Most scientific
Responds adequately Responds adequately to
principals and results Provides some
Visual aids were only to the questions asked; the questions asked;
were adequately evidence to support
adequately designed occasionally responds occasionally responds
communicated; much scientific claims, but
and often were not with unrelated with unrelated
of oral presentation was not always relevant,
able to communicate information. information. Responses
not adequately prepared sufficient, or
the information Responses to questions to questions are overly
or irrelevant; integrated into the
desired; Many of the are overly general and general and
occasional grammatical response. May have
visual aids were disorganized; may disorganized; may have
errors, imprecise some factual,
unnecessary and could have some factual, some factual,
diction or awkward interpretive, or
have been eliminated. interpretive, or interpretive, or
syntax; general conceptual errors.
conceptual errors. conceptual errors.
wordiness.
2 - Marginal

Oral presentation Evidence to support

Visual aids were
generally confusing; scientific findings Confuses some Confuses some
poorly designed and
repetitive, wanders; usually only narrative significant concepts in significant concepts in
confusing; Many of
frequent grammatical or anecdotal, and is the questions asked. the questions asked.
the visual aids were
errors, imprecise generally awkwardly Responses to questions Responses to questions
irrelevant and should
diction; wordiness and or incorrectly are vague or irrelevant. are vague or irrelevant
not have been used.
awkward syntax. incorporated.
1 – Unacceptable

Does not understand

Oral presentation not Does not understand
Visual aids were questions and/or
understandable. Not Little or no evidence questions and/or
sloppy and could not concepts. No
able to communicate cited to support concepts. No
be read or interpreted discernable response
general concepts, scientific claims. discernable response to
by the audience. to most questions
results and findings. most questions given.
given.