Performance Assessment Sheet
| Delegate Name | : |
- |
|---|---|---|
| Council Allocation | : |
- |
| Country Allocation | : |
- |
| Criteria | Excellent (Exceeds criteria)
76-100 |
Satisfactory (Meets criteria)
51-75 |
Fair (Approaching standards)
26-50 |
Poor (Below standards)
1-25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Substance 40%
|
Well-researched; exhibits extensive research; original ideas; relevant; on policy at all times; impressive vocabulary;
concise; clear. Knows exactly what is the position of its country. The delegate possesses ideas beyond what is expected. |
Substantive content reflects good research; research ideas meets the expected criteria; on point contents/facts; usually always on policy; informative; persuasive; not bullying or spewing propaganda. Knows to a great extent the position of its country. | Basic information that would improve with more research; repetitive; non-original; no obvious incorrect information or propaganda; unclear in places. Unclear information about his/her country's position. | Minimal information; not substantive at all; needs more research; not innovative; off-topic/policy; repetitive; incorrect information; unclear. Wrong takes about his/her country's position. |
Leadership 30%
|
The delegate has clearly taken the role of the leader of the group and his/her ideas have been pushed to the final resolution.
The delegate has been able to negotiate and persuade others about the suitability of his/her ideas. Even during mods, the delegate has always proposed new ideas
to be discussed upon. The delegate possesses leadership and diplomacy beyond what is expected. |
The delegate was part of the people pushing for ideas in the group. He/she has engaged in fruitful negotiations and has been able to push most of what he wanted to the resolution. | Slight ideas brought to the table but not able to push them to the final resolution. Passive and/or intermittent engagement in negotiations. Not very productive ideas and selfish (not groupal) way of thinking. | Practically absent, no initiative at all, getting carried by the rest of the group. No ideas brought to the table and little to no engagement in any sort of negotiations. |
Conduct 30%
|
Impeccable command of procedures. Understanding and application of rules, protocols, and decorum are flawless. Consistently
adheres to established guidelines, ensuring smooth and efficient proceedings. Exceptional attention to detail, from submitting motions to voting procedures,
reflects a deep commitment to procedural accuracy. Exemplary conduct inspires others, setting a gold standard for professionalism and engagement. Excellent
diplomatic manners and nice and fluid use of English. The delegate possesses a mastery of ROP beyond what is expected. |
Meets the expected criteria or standards. Demonstrates satisfactory clarity, organization, and the ability to navigate the debate through the use of procedures. Good use of English with some minor mistakes and overall good fluency. | Steadily approaching the expected standards. While there is room for improvement in clarity, organization, and effectively conveying complex ideas, the work shows progress. Attention to detail and adherence to legal and policy frameworks are developing, but further refinement is necessary. Not diplomatic in the manners and mid use of English. | The delegate did not study the ROP and was totally confused all throughout the session. Absolutely not diplomatic, with several grave protocol mistakes and no acceptable knowledge of English. |
| Criteria | Blue: Outstanding Performance
71-100 |
Green: Strong Performance
51-70 |
Orange: Adequate Performance
31-50 |
Red: Needs Improvement
30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substance 40% | Well-researched; exhibits extensive research; original ideas; relevant; on policy at all times; impressive vocabulary;
concise; clear. Knows exactly what is the position of its country. The delegate possesses ideas beyond what is expected. |
Substantive content reflects good research; research ideas meets the expected criteria; on point contents/facts; usually always on policy; informative; persuasive; not bullying or spewing propaganda. Knows to a great extent the position of its country. | Basic information that would improve with more research; repetitive; non-original; no obvious incorrect information or propaganda; unclear in places. Unclear information about his/her country's position. | Minimal information; not substantive at all; needs more research; not innovative; off-topic/policy; repetitive; incorrect information; unclear. Wrong takes about his/her country's position. |
Leadership 30%
|
The delegate has clearly taken the role of the leader of the group and his/her ideas have been pushed to the final
resolution. The delegate has been able to negotiate and persuade others about the suitability of his/her ideas. Even during mods, the delegate has always
proposed new ideas to be discussed upon. The delegate possesses leadership and diplomacy beyond what is expected. |
The delegate was part of the people pushing for ideas in the group. He/she has engaged in fruitful negotiations and has been able to push most of what he wanted to the resolution. | Slight ideas brought to the table but not able to push them to the final resolution. Passive and/or intermittent engagement in negotiations. Not very productive ideas and selfish (not groupal) way of thinking. | Practically absent, no initiative at all, getting carried by the rest of the group. No ideas brought to the table and little to no engagement in any sort of negotiations. |
Conduct 30%
|
Impeccable command of procedures. Understanding and application of rules, protocols, and decorum are flawless. Consistently
adheres to established guidelines, ensuring smooth and efficient proceedings. Exceptional attention to detail, from submitting motions to voting procedures,
reflects a deep commitment to procedural accuracy. Exemplary conduct inspires others, setting a gold standard for professionalism and engagement. Excellent
diplomatic manners and nice and fluid use of English. The delegate possesses a mastery of ROP beyond what is expected. |
Meets the expected criteria or standards. Demonstrates satisfactory clarity, organization, and the ability to navigate the debate through the use of procedures. Good use of English with some minor mistakes and overall good fluency. | Steadily approaching the expected standards. While there is room for improvement in clarity, organization, and effectively conveying complex ideas, the work shows progress. Attention to detail and adherence to legal and policy frameworks are developing, but further refinement is necessary. Not diplomatic in the manners and mid use of English. | The delegate did not study the ROP and was totally confused all throughout the session. Absolutely not diplomatic, with several grave protocol mistakes and no acceptable knowledge of English. |
| Criteria | Outstanding Performance
71-100 |
Strong Performance
51-70 |
Adequate Performance
31-50 |
Needs Improvement
30 |
DIDN'T ATTEMPT
0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Substance 40%
|
Well-researched; exhibits extensive research; original ideas; relevant; on policy at all times; impressive vocabulary;
concise; clear. Knows exactly what is the position of its country. The delegate possesses ideas beyond what is expected. |
Substantive content reflects good research; research ideas meets the expected criteria; on point contents/facts; usually always on policy; informative; persuasive; not bullying or spewing propaganda. Knows to a great extent the position of its country. | Basic information that would improve with more research; repetitive; non-original; no obvious incorrect information or propaganda; unclear in places. Unclear information about his/her country's position. | Minimal information; not substantive at all; needs more research; not innovative; off-topic/policy; repetitive; incorrect information; unclear. Wrong takes about his/her country's position. | The delegate was absent during the conference, nor did they work on their position paper as required. |
Leadership 30%
|
The delegate has clearly taken the role of the leader of the group and his/her ideas have been pushed to the final
resolution. The delegate has been able to negotiate and persuade others about the suitability of his/her ideas. Even during mods, the delegate has always
proposed new ideas to be discussed upon. The delegate possesses leadership and diplomacy beyond what is expected. |
The delegate was part of the people pushing for ideas in the group. He/she has engaged in fruitful negotiations and has been able to push most of what he wanted to the resolution. | Slight ideas brought to the table but not able to push them to the final resolution. Passive and/or intermittent engagement in negotiations. Not very productive ideas and selfish (not groupal) way of thinking. | Practically absent, no initiative at all, getting carried by the rest of the group. No ideas brought to the table and little to no engagement in any sort of negotiations. | |
Conduct 30%
|
Impeccable command of procedures. Understanding and application of rules, protocols, and decorum are flawless. Consistently
adheres to established guidelines, ensuring smooth and efficient proceedings. Exceptional attention to detail, from submitting motions to voting procedures,
reflects a deep commitment to procedural accuracy. Exemplary conduct inspires others, setting a gold standard for professionalism and engagement. Excellent
diplomatic manners and nice and fluid use of English. The delegate possesses a mastery of ROP beyond what is expected. |
Meets the expected criteria or standards. Demonstrates satisfactory clarity, organization, and the ability to navigate the debate through the use of procedures. Good use of English with some minor mistakes and overall good fluency. | Steadily approaching the expected standards. While there is room for improvement in clarity, organization, and effectively conveying complex ideas, the work shows progress. Attention to detail and adherence to legal and policy frameworks are developing, but further refinement is necessary. Not diplomatic in the manners and mid use of English. | The delegate did not study the ROP and was totally confused all throughout the session. Absolutely not diplomatic, with several grave protocol mistakes and no acceptable knowledge of English. |
| Criteria | Excellent (Exceeds criteria) 4 |
Satisfactory (Meets criteria) 3 or 3.5 |
Fair (Approaching standards) 2 or 2.5 |
Poor (Below standards) 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive Knowledge (Critical Thinking) 30% | Thoroughly researched; in-depth knowledge; unique ideas; relevant and aligned with policy; impressive vocabulary; concise and clear. | Solid research; accurate and relevant; generally adheres to policy; informative and persuasive. | Basic information; repetitive; lacks originality; unclear at times. | Minimal information; lacks substance; frequently off-topic; incorrect information. |
| Leadership and Diplomacy: Lobbying and Negotiation 20% | Consistently thoughtful and respectful; inclusive; always diplomatic; exceptional leadership. | Made efforts to consider different viewpoints; generally polite and respectful. | Minimal diplomacy; generally polite; some leadership qualities overshadowed by others. | Lacked diplomacy; combative, argumentative, and rude; impolite. |
| Use of Procedure 20% | Outstanding mastery of procedures; flawless grasp of rules, protocols, and decorum. | Meets required criteria. Adequate clarity and organization. | Gradually reaching expected standards. Progressing but further enhancement needed. | Did not review the ROP and was completely lost throughout the session. |
| Writing Skills: Amendment and Resolution Drafting 15% | Outstanding clarity, precision, and organization. Deep understanding of legal and policy frameworks. | Competent command of writing skills; satisfactory clarity and organization. | Making strides in drafting. Clarity improving but progress necessary. | Falls short in drafting. Clarity is limited; substantial improvement required. |
| Verbal skills and Eloquence (Public Speaking Skills) 15% | Professional, articulate, and well-spoken; engaging, humorous, compelling, persuasive, and dynamic. | Articulate delivery; generally persuasive; did not frequently use "um." | Informative but hesitant; lack of enthusiasm; poor posture; used "um" too frequently. | Poor quality; just read paper; little eye contact; said "um" too often. |
