Presentation Audit
COM2740 Assignment Rubric
Students are required to complete four assignments - one per month - that will consist of an evaluation of an outside communications event. A list of events is on Canvas, and students are encouraged to look for additional opportunities. However, only approved opportunities may be used - if the preferred event is not on the list, please contact the instructor before the event to ensure full credit will be received.
Each evaluation must include the following key elements:
1. Event information (Title, date, location, topic, type of event; write out in a paragraph, NOT a list) = up to 2 pts 2. Primary message/purpose – summarize in minimum of two paragraphs = up to 10 pts 3. Primary messenger(s) – Name, title, role; minimum of one paragraph = up to 3 pts 4. Evaluation of event logistics – minimum of one paragraph = up to 4 pts 5. Evaluation of audience – minimum of one paragraph = up to 3 pts 6. Evaluation of message delivery/event execution – minimum of one paragraph = up to 6 pts 7. Evaluation of audience reception – minimum of one paragraph = up to 3 pts 8. From a communication perspective or theory: what worked well/what didn’t work or could have been improved upon – minimum of three
paragraphs = up to 15 pts 9. Identification of communication professionals in supporting, planning or participating roles (minimum of 1 paragraph) = up to 4 pts
Possible Total: 50 pts (I will double this to 100 after calculating the initial score).
Subtotal
Event Information
2 = correct identification of all event elements 1 = missing one element 0 = missing two or more elements
Primary Message/ Purpose
10 = In-depth and accurate analysis of the main purpose of the event. What message is supposed to be conveyed, or what action is being promoted?
7 = Analysis is accurate but not detailed or is missing minor information; thoughts not clearly presented.
3 = Analysis misses key parts of the message or the desired result of the event; information presented disjointedly.
0 = Analysis of purpose/ message is blatantly inaccurate, missing large amounts of information and/or analysis is incomprehensible.
Messenger Identification
3 = correct identification of all messengers and pertinent information
2 = correct identification of messenger(s), trouble properly identifying role(s)
1 = missing identification of one or more messengers and/or roles
0 = missing identification of one or more messengers and roles
Event Logistics
4 = Able to clearly articulate all key logistics that support the event, including advertising, space, lineup, etc.
3 = Able to articulate most of the logistics that support the event
2 = Able to articulate a few logistics that support the event
1 = Unable to identify more than one key logistic that supports the event
Audience
3 = Able to specifically describe the audience in attendance and analyze whether the correct audience was targeted; provide clear details to support analysis
2 = Able to describe the audience in attendance and generally analyze whether the correct audience was targeted; few details to support analysis
1 = Able to generally describe the audience in attendance or analyze whether the correct audience was targeted; no details provided to support analysis
0 = Unable to describe the audience in attendance and or determine whether the correct audience was targeted
Message Delivery
6 = Clearly articulate how the message was delivered and whether it was an effective delivery system; provide clear details to support analysis
3 = Generally describe message delivery and whether it was effective; some supportive details provided
0 = Analysis does not indicate whether message delivery was effective
Audience Reception
3 = Correctly analyze audience’s reception with detail; indicate whether desired result achieved
2 = Generally analyze audience’s reception; indicate whether desired result achieved
1 = Cannot analyze audience’s reception or cannot indicate whether desired result achieved
0 = Cannot analyze audience’s reception and cannot indicate whether desired result achieved
Communication Analysis
15 = Able to clearly articulate what worked well/what didn’t work or could have been improved upon from a communications perspective with strong supporting details
10 = Able to generally identify what worked well/ what didn’t work or could have been improved upon with some supporting details
5 = Cannot articulate what worked well/ what didn’t work or could have been improved upon or lacking supporting details
0 = Cannot articulate what worked well/what didn’t work or could have been improved upon; no relevant details provided
Practitioner Identification
4 = correct identification of practitioners and their roles
2 = missing/incorrect one practitioner and/or one role
0 = missing two or more practitioners and/or roles
Total: