Presentation

Measures whether the first two minutes told the audience what this is for, what they will be able to do afterward, and why it matters to them now. Not whether slides existed.

1. 5

   Within two minutes you state the purpose, the objective as a capability (“by the end you’ll be able to draft X in ten minutes”), why it matters to this audience now, and how long it takes. You set the context and stakes and then get into it.

2. 4

   Purpose and objective stated, but the objective is a topic (“today is about the tracker”) rather than a capability, or the why is implied.

3. 3

   Some framing, but you are into the first slide or demo before the audience knows what the session is for.

4. 2

   You start with the tool or the content and leave the audience to infer relevance.

5. 1

   No framing. The session begins mid-content or with several minutes of setup and logistics.

Evidence: CIPD 2023 (goal clarity r = .51 to .54); Gagné 1985 (state objectives, recall prior learning); Hastings and Meyer 2020 (lead with context) for the language only. All sources

Measures whether each point is led with its takeaway, made once, and closed before the next begins.

1. 5

   Every point leads with the takeaway and stops when it lands. One idea at a time. No point is diluted by a second idea, a restatement, or an anecdote that costs more time than it adds clarity. Jargon is translated for the least expert person in the room.

2. 4

   Mostly tight. One point runs a beat long or carries a second idea; the message survives.

3. 3

   Several points are overexplained: the takeaway sits under restatement, tangents, or anecdotes the room has stopped tracking.

4. 2

   Habitual overexplanation. Key lines are lost in volume. Audience questions show they missed the point.

5. 1

   Rambling. Nobody in the room could say afterward what the takeaway was.

Evidence: CIPD 2023 (focused communication; avoid monologues); Oppenheimer 2006; Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 2012. All sources

Measures whether the audience leaves with one or two concrete actions, a path to help, and clarity on what arrives afterward and when.

1. 5

   In the last minutes you state one or two specific actions (“before Friday, run this on one real memo”), say where to get help and from whom, and name what you will send and when (slides, recording, template). Someone in the room says the action back, or you ask them to. You end on time.

2. 4

   Clear action and follow-up path, stated loosely or not confirmed back. Materials promised without a date.

3. 3

   Next steps are implied (“I’d encourage you to try this”) rather than stated as actions.

4. 2

   Next steps are vague, buried, or replaced by logistics.

5. 1

   No takeaway action; the session just stops when time runs out.

Evidence: Gollwitzer and Sheeran 2006 (d = .65); Härgestam et al. 2013 (readback); Mroz et al. 2018 (the “after” phase: distribute materials and actions, follow up). All sources

Measures how many times the audience had to produce something: answer a real question, try a step, explain a concept back. Not energy, laughter, or nodding.

1. 5

   Every major segment ends with a check where a named person or the room answers a real question (not “make sense?”). At least one moment where the audience does the thing (types the prompt, drafts the line, sorts the cases). Audience questions are answered directly and you confirm the answer landed. The close includes retrieval (“tell me the three steps without looking”).

2. 4

   Questions answered and checks present, but addressed to the room in general so the same two people answer. One practice moment, or none in a short briefing where practice was not realistic.

3. 3

   “Any questions?” appears only at the end. Checks are “does that make sense?” with no pause. No practice.

4. 2

   The audience is never asked to produce anything. Questions are deferred to “after” or to a follow-up email.

5. 1

   Pure broadcast. Audience questions are cut off, unanswered, or answered with a new monologue.

Evidence: Roediger and Karpicke 2006 (retrieval beat restudy at two days and one week); Gagné 1985 (elicit performance, give feedback, assess); Alliger et al. 1997 (audience reactions correlate only weakly with learning, so mood is not the signal). All sources

Measures whether key terms were taught before the content that uses them, whether content was segmented with a pause between segments, and whether you delivered one idea at a time.

1. 5

   Key terms are defined before the content that depends on them. Content comes in segments with a pause or check between each; each segment carries one idea. You signpost (“three things; first...”). Slides and demos show one thing at a time and you do not talk over a busy screen.

2. 4

   Segmented, but one term is introduced mid-flow, or one segment carries two ideas.

3. 3

   Terms are defined after confusion shows. Long unbroken stretches. Ideas stack.

4. 2

   No segmentation. A tour of features. The audience is asked to hold several new terms at once.

5. 1

   Unstructured. Nobody could say what the parts of the session were.

Evidence: Mayer and Pilegard 2014 (segmenting supported in 10 of 10 tests, median d = 0.79; pre-training key terms in 13 of 16, median d = 0.75); Sweller 1988 and Sweller, van Merriënboer and Paas 2019 (working-memory limits); Gagné 1985. All sources

How the total is built

Weighted = raw × weight × 20, with the weight as a decimal (a raw 5 at 20% contributes 20 points).

What is never scored

• Whether the content itself was good, correct, or the right choice for the session. Score how it was delivered.
• Room energy, laughter, enthusiasm, or “great session” comments. Reactions are a poor proxy for learning.
• Slide design or visual polish, unless it caused the load problems in dimension 5.
• Attendance, turnout, or who showed up late.
• Tech failures, platform outages, or a slow laptop.
• Whether the audience adopted the practice later. That belongs in a follow-up, not this transcript.