Informative

Speech Grading Rubric

Criteria
Introduction
(10 %)

______/15 pts.

Excellent (A)
(15-14 pts.) Speaker used an
excellent attention getting
device, & strong thesis. Speaker
effectively established
credibility & previewed the
main points of the speech. All
items were clearly labeled in the
speakers outline.

Kelly Soczka Kaiser, 3/3/15

Above Average (B)

(13-12 pts.) Speaker used an
attention getting device & thesis.
Speaker established credibility &
previewed the main points of the
speech. All items were clearly
labeled in the speakers outline.

Average (C)
(11-10 pts.) Speaker missed some
of the 4 objectives of an effective
introduction; but had a thesis &
revealed the topic of the speech.
Some items were labeled in the
outline.

(39-36 pts.) Speaker appears to

know about their topic & has a basic
understanding. Main points were
present in the outline, but they
sometimes lacked
support/evidence. Explanation of
some concepts was needed.

(35-32 pts.) Speaker provided

some support for main points,
but needed to elaborate further
using explanations, examples, &
descriptions (evidence).
Understanding of the topic is
lacking.

Content
(30%)

______/45 pts.

(45-40 pts.) Speaker exhibited

in-depth knowledge & rich
understanding of topic. Main
points were supported with
convincing evidence and were
clearly written in the speakers
outline. Provided accurate
explanation of key concepts.

Deficient (D)
(9-0 pts.) Speaker missed
most of the 4 objectives
of an effective
introduction. The
introduction was
confusing and/or
unorganized. None of the
items were labeled in the
outline.

(31-0 pts.) Provided

irrelevant or no support.
Explanations of concepts
were inaccurate or
incomplete. Listeners gain
little knowledge from the
presentation.

Organization of
Main Points &
Evidence
(15%)

______/23 pts.

Transitions
(5%)

_______/7 pts.

(15-14 pts.) Speaker clearly used

one of the following informative
organizational patterns to
arrange the speech: spatial,
chronological, cause/effect,
topical. Pattern was correctly
identified in the speakers
outline. Supporting points were
exceptionally organized,
evident, & supported the main
points.

(7-6 pts.) Speaker used
articulate, effective transitions
throughout speech and in the
outline.

(13-12 pts.) Speaker used one of the

following informative organizational
patterns to arrange their speech:
spatial, chronological, cause/effect,
topical. Pattern was identified in the
speakers outline. Supporting points
were organized, evident, &
supported the main points.

(11-10 pts.) Speaker attempted to

use one of the organizational
patterns, but some confusion
exists in the arrangement of main
points and/or supporting points.
Some supporting points were dis-
organized, but supported the
main points.

(9-0 pts.) Speaker did not

use one of the informative
organizational patterns.
Main points were unclear
or did not support thesis.
Supporting points were
confusing or misplaced.
Evidence was not evident
or supportive.

(5 pts.) Speaker used transitions

throughout speech and in the
outline between main points.

(4 pts.) Speaker was missing

some transitions between main
points. Some transitions were
unclear or were not labeled in the
outline.

(3-0 pts.) Speaker did not

use transitions correctly.
Many transitions were
missing.

Criteria
Incorporation
of Research
(15%)

______/23 pts.

Excellent (A)
(23-21 pts.) Sources of
information were clearly
identified & properly cited
(both orally & in outline).
Established credibility &
authority of sources were
presented. Research is from 4
or more credible sources.

Above Average (B)

(20-19 pts.) Sources of information
were identified & cited (both orally &
in outline). Majority of research is
from credible sources. Some errors
exist in oral source citations & in
outline.

Average (C)
(18-16 pts.) Most sources were
clearly cited, but failed to
effectively establish credibility &
authority of sources presented.
More than one source of
research lacked credibility and
reference page contained less
than 4 sources.

Deficient (D)
(15-0 pts.) Failed to
identify & cite sources. No
attempt made to establish
credibility & authority of
sources presented. Lacked
credible sources.

(5 pts.) Speaker condensed ideas &

signaled ending to audience. Speaker
restated the thesis & reviewed the
main points.

(4 pts.) Speaker gave the

audience an indication that the
speech was ending. Unclear
restatement of thesis/or review
of main points.

(3-0 pts.) Leaves audience

uncertain as to whether
speech has concluded.

Conclusion
(5%)

______/7 pts.

(7-6 pts.) Speaker effectively

condensed ideas & signaled
ending to audience.
Exceptional restatement of
thesis & review of main points.

Delivery
(20%)

_______/30
pts.

(30-27 pts.) Speaker displayed

little or no distracting
mannerisms & had strong eye
contact. Speaker exhibited
confidence and appeared
extremely well prepared.
Nonverbal behaviors & vocal
variety are used to keep the
audience engaged. Delivery
style is modified as needed.
Speaker used notes or visual
aids as supplement, not as a
crutch.

Visual Aids (if
applicable)

Presentation was visually

organized & complete. Visual
aids were used effectively
throughout presentation.

(26-24 pts.) Minimal distracting

mannerisms were displayed.
Occasional loss of eye contact.
Speaker exhibited confidence and
appeared well prepared.
Speaker could use more nonverbal
behaviors and/or vocal variety to
keep the audience engaged. Delivery
style is modified as needed.
Speaker used notes or visual aids
primarily as a supplement, not as a
crutch.

(23-21pts.) Speaker used

frequent distracting mannerisms.
Eye contact made intermittently.
Speaker may have lacked some
confidence and may have relied
to heavily on notes or visual aids
to delivery speech. Delivery style
needs to be modified to keep the
audience engaged.






Visual aids supported some of
Presentation was organized &
complete. Visual aids were somewhat the verbal presentation.
effective, but werent used
consistently throughout the
presentation.

(20-0 pts.) Speaker used

frequent distracting
mannerism and/or lack of
eye contact. Speaker
appeared to lack
confidence and read
directly from notes or
slides.







Visual aids used did not
support verbal
presentation.