Many students perceive criticism just as uncomplimentary or even destructive. The legitimate purpose of all criticism should be improvement. Only if we are aware of problems can we do something about them. Few of us are honest enough and discerning enough to give ourselves the impartial objective view of ourselves which we can get from a friendly critic on the outside. By exposing ourselves to criticism we give ourselves the opportunity to improve in unexpected ways.

All presentations are subject to evaluation. (This course itself will benefit from your criticisms at the end of the semester). Much can be learned from the evaluation of poor seminars. Good seminars could have been even better. Two principles of criticism should be kept in mind: recognition of existing merit is essential in criticism, and faultfinding without a suggestion for improvement is not useful. Only when one understands the art of criticism as an appraisal, recognizing both good and bad, and offering constructive suggestions is one ready to evaluate the performance of others and ready to receive criticism oneself.

As a rule, people tend to withhold what they really think of their peers' presentation even when asked for feedback. They are likely to say "Good talk" or "Nice job" without meaning it at all. Such comments are a waste of time, if someone wants to improve. They may make the speaker feel better, but they do not help him or her to speak better. Objective analysis need not cause the harm of resentment and self-consciousness that negative criticism, tactlessly stated, can produce.

A critic should constantly be thinking "Why?" Why did I like that example? Why can't I follow this argument? Why did my attention wander? Why was the information presented this way rather than some other? A critic should also learn from the experience of others. We all have room for improvement. As we proceed through the series of presentations, the quality of the talks should improve as the result of our collective experience.

¹ Portions adapted from Smedley, R. C. (1947) Speech Evaluation, The Art of Constructive Criticism, Toastmasters International, Inc., Santa Ana, CA.

Presenter(s):

Date:

Topic:

Organization 

Aspect	1 Marginal	2 Developing	3 Proficient	4 Exemplary
Purpose/position	Not stated	Stated, not obvious	Stated, unclear	Clearly Stated
Context	Previous work not mentioned	Previous work  mentioned	Some reference to previous work	Clear reference to previous work
Sequence	Completely out of order	Somewhat jumbled	Mostly logical, some pieces out of order	Logical
Summary	No summary	Summary misses important pieces	Summer misses some pieces	Very clear and complete
Timing	Way over/under	Clearly over/under	Slightly over/under	On time

Oral Presentation 

Aspect	1 Marginal	2 Developing	3 Proficient	4 Exemplary
Volume	Could not hear presentation, mumbled	Difficult to hear	Mostly clear	Clearly understandable
Transitions/Pace	Not smooth, lots of gaps	Many gaps	Smooth, some gaps	Very smooth, no gaps
Mannerisms	Very distracting	Mostly distracting	Mostly able to focus on presentation	Not distracting
Tone	Extremely nervous, many uhms and hesitations	Very nervous, frequent hesitations	Slightly nervous, some hesitation	Confident, no uhms or hesitations

Visual Communication

Aspect	1 Marginal	2 Developing	3 Proficient	4 Exemplary
Readable/ Understandable	Cluttered, small print, not understandable	Mostly difficult to read	Mostly easy to read	Easy to read
Data, graphs, tables	Missing most headings and unit labels	Headings and labels unclear	Some headings and unit labels	Legible with headings and units
Reactions, formulas, mechanisms	Very difficult to follow	Very unclear	Slightly difficult to follow	Clear and easy to follow
Slides: color, variation, interesting	Monotonous	Some okay	Mostly good	Good use; interesting

Content of the Presentation

State in your own words what you consider to be the main point of the presentation?
 
 
 

What evidence did you find most effective in supporting the group's position?
 
 
 
 

What evidence do you have that the group had command of their subject based on their presentation and response to questions?
 
 
 
 

Summary: What one thing did the group do especially well? What would you suggest the speaker(s)/group should work on to achieve the greatest improvement in subsequent talks?