Judging Poster Presentations

A team presents their poster confidently, using fluent English. However, several grammatical errors are noticeable, especially with subject-verb agreement and prepositions. What is the best judging approach in this situation?

• Disqualify them for poor grammar

• Ignore grammar if fluency is good

• Acknowledge fluency but reduce the language accuracy score

• Deduct in delivery only

• Score low in all categories

While watching a presentation, you notice that the presenter uses advanced vocabulary such as “substantiate,” “implement,” and “significant discrepancy.” However, many words are mispronounced or spoken unclearly, affecting the rhythm and comprehension of the presentation. What is the most reasonable scoring approach in this case?

• Reward vocabulary usage and ignore pronunciation issues

• Disqualify the participant for unclear pronunciation

• Ignore the vocabulary level and focus only on visual aids

• Score them based on audience reaction

• Deduct slightly for pronunciation that affects clarity, while acknowledging vocabulary effort

You are judging two separate groups that submitted nearly identical posters—same layout, wording, and even visuals. When questioned, both groups insist they created the posters independently. The competition rules mention poster originality but do not define plagiarism. What is the most ethical action as a judge?

• Disqualify both groups for suspected copying

• Score based on performance and communication if plagiarism can't be proven

• Penalize both groups automatically

• Ask the committee to investigate while giving zero scores

• Score only the visuals and ignore the issue

A group presents their project with accurate grammar and appropriate vocabulary, but they speak with a monotonous tone, make no eye contact, and read directly from a paper. There is no engagement with the judges or audience. How should you evaluate their delivery and communication effectiveness?

• Deduct in delivery for lack of spontaneity and audience engagement

• Give full marks for language accuracy

• Ignore delivery skills and score based on poster content

• Penalize only if time is exceeded

• Give extra points for being well-prepared

A presenter gives an excellent performance, but when asked a follow-up question about the conclusion section, She seem confused and provide vague answers. It becomes evident that she memorized their parts but do not fully understand the poster’s content. What is the best adjudicator response?

• Award full marks for presentation since their delivery was good

• Score them highly because they memorized technical content

• Deduct significantly in comprehension and Q&A performance

• Focus only on visual elements

• Ignore it if the poster looks professional

The poster contains several spelling errors such as “recieve,” “enviroment,” and “devlopment.” The overall layout and color scheme are attractive, and the presentation is clear and engaging. How should you score this group in terms of written language use?

• Ignore spelling since spoken language is more important

• Deduct points for written accuracy, even if the spoken part is strong

• Score low in all areas

• Disqualify the group for carelessness

• Focus only on oral grammar

While listening to a team’s presentation, you notice that they frequently use fillers like “uh,” “um,” “you know,” and “like.” While their ideas are clear, the excessive fillers disrupt the flow of their speech. What is your best course of action as a judge?

• Penalize slightly in fluency due to the overuse of fillers

• Disqualify the group for poor speaking habits

• Ignore it since the message is clear

• Deduct only in grammar

• Score based on confidence, not language quality

You are evaluating a student’s poster on renewable energy. The information is clear, accurate, and presented logically. However, the presenter does not use any gestures, facial expressions, or variation in voice tone, making the delivery monotonous. What is the most appropriate way to reflect this in your scoring?

• Score high because the content is accurate

• Deduct points in the presentation/delivery category for lack of engagement

• Give full marks because gestures are optional

• Only score based on the poster, not delivery

• Disqualify the student for poor body language

During the judging process, you notice a poster where the main research problem is unclear. Although the student explains it verbally, the objective is not well defined on the poster itself. What does this most affect in your evaluation?

• Presentation timing

• Font size and layout

• Clarity and organization of content

• Use of colors and images

• Reference formatting

A student presenting their poster on education technology explains all elements confidently and fluently. However, the font size on the printed poster is too small, making it difficult for the audience to read from a reasonable distance. What is the best way to assess this?

• Score low in all categories due to one formatting issue

• Deduct points in visual design for poor readability

• Ignore the issue since the presenter explained it clearly

• Ask the student to print a larger version and resubmit

• Give full points for content and design