Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

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 2020

2020 Exhibition of Undergraduate Research and Creative Achievement banner

Visit the EURēCA 2020 Virtual Symposium and view the undergraduate research posters from last year’s participants! You will need to make an account and log in to view the exhibition.

EURēCA 2020 was held in virtual format, using Zoom, on April 13, 2020.  Abstract submissions opened January 5 and closed at midnight March 11.

Assessing your Poster

Criteria:

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. 

Categories:

  • Articulation of Problem, Purpose, or Focus
  • Scholarly Content
  • Application of Scholarly Method/ Technique to Project Design
  • Analysis or Interpretation
  • Implications/Impact

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

  • Expert: 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.
  • Proficient: 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.
  • Emerging: Question, hypothesis, or position is stated clearly; and/or A purpose or focus of the work can be determined.
  • Novice: Question, hypothesis, position, purpose, or focus is not visible or stated clearly.
  • Expert: Comprehensively places problem/question in appropriate scholarly context (scholarly literature, theory, model, or genre).
  • Proficient: Sufficiently places problem/question in appropriate scholarly context (scholarly literature, theory, model, or genre).
  • Emerging: Partially places problem/question in scholarly context; some critical elements are missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused.
  • Novice: Scholarly context for the problem/question may be apparent but is not sufficiently demonstrated.
  • Expert: 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.
  • Proficient: 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.
  • Emerging: 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.
  • Novice: 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.
  • Expert: Interpretation is explicitly linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model.
  • Proficient: Interpretation is adequately linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model.
  • Emerging: Interpretation is partially linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model.
  • Novice: Interpretation is minimally linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model.
  • Expert: Implications, consequences, and/or questions raised by the project are thoroughly explored. Limitations are fully articulated.
  • Proficient: Implications, consequences, and/or questions are adequately explored. Limitations are adequately articulated.
  • Emerging: Limitations are partially articulated.
  • Novice: Implications, consequences, and/or questions are minimally supported or unarticulated. Limitations are minimally or not articulated.
  • Expert: Presentation or performance is of superior quality. Delivery is free of technical errors.
  • Proficient: Presentation or performance is of high quality. Delivery has few technical errors.
  • Emerging: Presentation or performance is of acceptable quality. Delivery has some technical errors.
  • Novice: Presentation or performance is of low quality. Delivery has frequent technical errors.