Assessment form for 3 Point Presentation

 

A.  Communications

 

1. Clarity

 

3 points:I feel I understood 100% of their intended message in terms of language skills, grammatical structure, presentation ability, organization, and vocabulary – regardless of content, correctness, or agreement.

 

2 pts:I got the main message.I understand 75% of their intended message.

 

1 pts:I am not confident I understood the main idea.

2. CTA – Call to Action

 

3 points:I know exactly what they want my next step to be as a result.

 

2 pts:I think I have a good idea of what they want to happen, though it is not clear how it is going to happen or what I am going to do.

 

1 pts:I am unclear or conflicted about what is supposed to happen as a result of hearing this presentation.

 

 

3. Structure / Time management

 

3 points:The presentation used the entire time but didn’t go over, and was clearly constructed to deliver important content at all times.

 

2 pts:Close to the time limit.Introduction and conclusion were clear.

 

1 pts:Went too long or was too short.Internal organization was lacking or confused.No clear introduction or conclusion.

 

 

B.  Leadership / Team

 

1. Specialization

 

3:Team roles were clear.A team leader, presenter, analyst, and subject matter expert were clear.Technology and presentation were frictionless.

 

2:Team roles were limited.Leader, presentation, and tech were competent.Some members of the team didn’t seem to have roles or overlapped.

 

1:Freeriding was a problem.1 or 2 people seem responsible for 90% of output.

 

2. Stakeholder analysis

 

3:They identified who the presentation was directed at, and the introduction, bridge, and CTA were appropriate in terms of power, familiarity, and personalization.

 

2: I think I have a good idea who they were presenting to, and it was more or less correct.The presentation did not indicate who the stakeholders were.

 

1:The presentation was general, generic, or intended for the wrong audience.

 

3.  Team coordinated

 

3:Presentation time was evenly divided between 3 or more experts.A leader, facilitator, or MC seemly handled intros and transitions.Team members achieved more together than any individual could on their own.

 

2:Presentation involved 2 or more people.Transitions and timing were generally competent.Coordination was basic and competent, but it didn’t seem that being a team enhanced the output.

 

1:The team seemed to harm performance.They achieved less together than a single person could be expected to do.

 

 

C. Critical Thinking

 

1. Logical

 

3:The presentation has an internal logic and consistency.Regardless of whether or not I agreed with their premise or conclusion, their arguments were valid, grounded in reality, and based on observation or research.Their arguments were the product of analysis – not opinion.Conclusions were framed by their introduction and supported by the bridge.

 

2:Their arguments were generally logical and consistent, but had issues with relevance, logic, and consistency.Some of the things they said didn’t agree with their introduction, they seemed to be making assumptions they didn’t explain or support, and/or their conclusion didn’t seem to be a product of their supporting analysis.

 

1:Their presentation lacked logic, internal consistency, or structure.

 

2.  Framing

 

3:The presenters placed the question or problem in context that favored their conclusion.They gave thought to the way they stated the problem they were solving, and took time and effort to articulate it.The way they presented the problem was innovative, creative, and/or persuasive.

 

2: The issue they were addressing was presented neutrally or in the default.They didn’t explore or shape the question, but rather just assumed that there was only one way to view it.

 

1:It was unclear what problem they were trying to solve, or they failed to address the problem they intended to.

 

3.  Innovation

 

3:Their approach was creative, innovative, and value-adding.They were original in terms of their proposal, business conclusion, framing, presentation style and/or analysis.They went out of their way to be creative but in a way that supported their business proposal.

 

2:Elements of their analysis or presentation were interesting, challenging, or out-of-the-ordinary.They pushed the envelop or proposed a new approach in some way.While their work wasn’t characterized by innovation, it also wasn’t bound by convention or precedent.

1:Their approach and mechanics were noticeably constrained by convention, precedent, and standard operating procedures.They seemed to shy way from innovative approaches, or were unable to break from traditional solutions.

 

D. Overall

​​

​Persuasiveness

 

3:  This presentation changed my view or swayed my opinion in some way.Even if I already agreed with their general position, their presentation reinforced my view or affected my reasons and logic.

 

2:The presentation would give a reasonable person cause to consider their proposal, reasoning, or conclusions.Even if a listener didn’t change their views as a result, he or she would feel that the presentation raised valid points and presented them in a somewhat compelling way.

 

1:The presentation failed to sway opinion or was counterproductive.​​

 

 

Scoring:

 

Overall

___ / 30

 

__ %

 

Presentation

__ / 9

               

_ %

 

Leadership

               

__/9

 

_ %

 

Critical Thinking

 

__ / 9

                               

_ %

 

 

Persuasiveness

                               

__/3

 

_ %

©2020  Property of ATH Partners, LLC.  All Rights Reserved