Skip to main content

Research Posters

Poster sessions in classes and at conferences are a way to visually convey research. This guide offers the basics in design, content, and printing resources.

EUReCA Poster Session - Spring 2016

An Epidemiological Study of Ankle Injuries Among Football Players
Evaluating the Cytotoxic Effects of Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNCs) Using Autobioluminescent Yeast and Human Cells
Word Learning in Quiet and in Noise: A Preliminary Study
Habituation Rate to Foods of Differing Fat and Sugar Content
How Do Sharing Economy Companies Grow_ A Comparison
Impulsivity and the Dissolution of Romantic Relationships
Measuring School-Based Agriculture Education Total Program Success
Synthesis of PtCuCo ternary alloy using laser ablation synthesis in solution-galvanic replacement reaction(LASiS-GRR)
Nucleosynthesis in Core-Collapse Supernovae
ONE KNOXville: Connecting the People
Brand Positioning vs. Employee Behavior
Is Cheap Fashion Too Good to be True? Consumer Perceptions of Sustainability in the Fast Fashion Industry
Scoring Human Decomposition From Photographs_  A Validation Study
Guess Who’s Being Your Mentor?  A Photo Elicitation Study of Formal Minority Mentorships in Public Accounting
Creating Networks for Success: Social Capital and Recent College Graduates
Who Is To Blame_ Attribution Theory In The Automotive Industry

Assess your poster with this rubric

Note: If you are creating a poster for a class, use any rubrics provided by your professor first. 

This is the criteria by which you can grade your poster:

  • Expert: Use appropriate evidence, presentation modes and/or argument strategies to skillfully communicate meaning to a specified audience; communicate with clarity and fluency and in a virtually error-free presentation. 
  • Proficient: Use mostly appropriate evidence, presentation modes, and/or argument strategies to communicate meaning to a specified audience; design a presentation that is clear and has few errors. 
  • Emerging: Use some appropriate evidence, presentation modes, and/or argument strategies to communicate meaning to a specified audience; design a presentation with limited clarity and/or some errors. 
  • Novice: Use approaches or include errors that limit or obscure relevance and impede understanding. 
  Expert Proficient Emerging Novice
Articulation of Problem, Purpose, or Focus

Question, hypothesis, or position is articulated and defended in the context of the problem or purpose; and/or

A central purpose, focus, or essence of the work or performance is highly evident

Question, hypothesis, or position is stated clearly and context of the problem or purpose is apparent; and/or

A central purpose, focus, or essence of the work or performance is evident

Question, hypothesis, or position is stated clearly; and/or

A purpose or focus of the work can be determined

Question, hypothesis, position, purpose, or focus is not visible or stated clearly
Scholarly Context Comprehensively places problem/question in appropriate scholarly context (scholarly literature, theory, model, or genre) Sufficiently places problem/question in appropriate scholarly context (scholarly literature, theory, model, or genre) Partially places problem/question in scholarly context; some critical elements are missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused Scholarly context for the problem/question may be apparent but is not sufficiently demonstrated
Application of Scholarly Method/Technique to Project Design

Method/technique is appropriate for question or purpose

Data/sources/evidence are expertly presented

All elements of method/technique are fully developed and articulated

Evidence supports a mature, complex, and/or nuanced analysis of the problem

Method/technique is appropriate for question or purpose

Data/sources/evidence are adequately presented

Critical elements of method/technique are adequately developed; subtle elements are unclear or missing

Evidence supports an adequately complex analysis of the problem

Method/technique loosely supports the question or purpose

Data/sources/evidence are partially presented

Critical elements of method/technique are partially developed

Evidence supports a limited analysis of the problem

Method/technique is not appropriate for question or purpose

Data/sources/evidence are minimally or not presented

Critical elements of method/technique are minimally developed

Evidence supports very limited analysis of the problem

Analysis or Interpretation Interpretation is explicitly linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model Interpretation is adequately linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model Interpretation is partially linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model Interpretation is minimally linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model
Implications/Impact

Implications, consequences, and/or questions raised by the project are thoroughly explored

Limitations are fully articulated

Implications, consequences, and/or questions are adequately explored

Limitations are adequately articulated

Implications, consequences, and/or questions are partially explored

Limitations are partially articulated

Implications, consequences, and/or questions are minimally supported or unarticulated

Limitations are minimally or not articulated

Quality of Delivery

Presentation or performance is of superior quality

Delivery is free of technical errors

Presentation or performance is of high quality

Delivery has few technical errors

Presentation or performance is of acceptable quality

Delivery has some technical errors

Presentation or performance is of low quality

Delivery has frequent technical errors

Adapted from http://assessment.gmu.edu/student-as-scholars/outcomes-rubrics/