161S23_student_poster_rubric (1)

Poster Presentation Evaluation Form (student) STUDENT EVALUATOR’S NAME: Thomas Russo Title: Exploring transpiration in Codiaeum variegatum and Alocasia macrorrhiza Schott Authors: Kamsiyonna, Jackeline, Parker, Brent On a scale of 1 to 5 (highlight), rate each presentation on the following. 1. The poster was well organized. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 2. The poster followed a logical progression. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 3. The speakers exhibited knowledge of content in the poster. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 4. Authors presented adequate, accurate background information. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 5. Authors stated hypotheses and predictions clearly. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 6. The results of the experiment supported the authors’ conclusions. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 7. The authors used accurate, up to date resources and citations. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 8. The authors utilized format and design appropriately for the poster. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 9. Figures and Tables were well designed and used effectively. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 10. The authors spoke clearly and were easy to understand. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 11. The authors appropriately engaged and involved the audience. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 12. Audience’s questions were answered satisfactorily. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 13. The poster presentation met my expectations. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree What were the best things about this poster presentation? The presenters were very educated about the topic Student poster assessment -

What changes could have made the poster presentation more effective? The poster could have been better formatted. Title: The effects of salinity on Codiaeum Croton Petra transpiration Authors: Isabella, Sydney, Diego, Maddie Student poster assessment -

Authors: Gianni, Messiah, Tomas, Armando On a scale of 1 to 5 (highlight), rate each presentation on the following. 1. The poster was well organized. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 2. The poster followed a logical progression. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 3. The speakers exhibited knowledge of content in the poster. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 4. Authors presented adequate, accurate background information. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 5. Authors stated hypotheses and predictions clearly. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 6. The results of the experiment supported the authors’ conclusions. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 7. The authors used accurate, up to date resources and citations. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 8. The authors utilized format and design appropriately for the poster. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 9. Figures and Tables were well designed and used effectively. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 10. The authors spoke clearly and were easy to understand. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 11. The authors appropriately engaged and involved the audience. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 12. Audience’s questions were answered satisfactorily. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 13. The poster presentation met my expectations. strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree What were the best things about this poster presentation? Their data was concise, and their graphs were easy to read. What changes could have made the poster presentation more effective? Louder speaking and less words on the poster. Student poster assessment -