| Presentation | Excellent (5p) | Good (3p) | Insufficient (1p) |
| The contribution has a clearly articulated question or problem formulation and the contextualization of the contribution is relevant to the meeting. The contribution has the potential to stimulate relevant discussion on EE/ESD.
| The question or problem is formulated and the contribution is reasonably contextualized. | The contribution is insufficiently motivated for the meeting and the question or problem formulation is incomplete or missing. |
| The contribution is explicitly situated and supported in relevant research or praxis via clear reference to theories, approaches and communities.
| The contribution is connected to research or praxis. | The connection to praxis or research is missing or vague. |
| Methods or approaches are described and motivated relative the question or problem formulations of the contribution.
| The contribution describes methods and approaches explicitly. | Methods/approaches are not sufficiently accounted for. |
| Results and analyses of data are related to and develop the aim, question or problem formulations, methods, as well as research and praxis.
| Results and data are accounted for in relation to the question or problem formulation. | The account of results and data is missing or critically insufficient. |
| The contribution discusses results or experiences in relation to the question or problem formulation. Critical connections or recommendations for the individual study or project are made via reflections that also contribute to the general perspective of EE/ESD.
| The contribution contains discussion or reflection relative the question or problem formulation. | The results or experiences are not analysed or discussed in relation to the question or problem formulation. |
| The contents of the contribution are well communicated and audience-adapted for accessibility in terms of language as well as structure. The argumentation is convincing and adapted in order not to exclude relevant groups. | The contents of the contribution are well communicated and audience-adapted for accessibility in terms of language as well as structure. | The contribution fails to communicate in one or several of these areas: audience, adaptation, language, structure, referencing. |
