Rubric for judging MATHEMATICS projects

SCORE = 5 SCORE = 4 SCORE = 3 SCORE = 2 SCORE = 1

PERFECT SCORE
FIRST PLACE
The presentation had a
sharp, distinct focus.
The presenter used
FULLFILLMENT OF PURPOSE
FIRST PLACE SECOND PLACE THIRD PLACE THIRD PLACE
The presentation had a The presentation had The presentation had The presentation had
clear focus. adequate focus. vague focus. an absence of focus.
The presenter used The presenter used The presenter did not The presenter did not

appropriate mathematical appropriate appropriate use appropriate use appropriate

vocabulary and used it mathematical
correctly. vocabulary and used it
The scope of the correctly.
presentation was The scope of the
excellent, considering presentation was
both the topic and time appropriate,
allowed considering both the
The presenter showed topic and time allowed.
excellent depth of The presenter showed
understanding of relevant proficient depth of
mathematical concepts understanding of
and principles. relevant mathematical
concepts and
principles.
The presentation had The presentation had The presentation had
substantial, specific and specific and illustrative
illustrative content. content.
The presenter includes The presenter gives
complete, specific example(s) of practical
example(s) of practical application or
application or correlation correlation with other
with other disciplines. disciplines. (This does
CONTENT
mathematical mathematical
vocabulary with a vocabulary and/or had
minor error or two. errors in the use of
The scope of the mathematical terms.
presentation was The scope of the
somewhat limited, presentation was very
considering both the limited, considering
topic and time allowed. both the topic and time
The presenter showed allowed.
satisfactory depth of The presenter showed
understanding of limited depth of
relevant mathematical understanding of
concepts and relevant mathematical
principles. concepts and
principles.
The presentation had The presentation had
sufficient content. limited content.
The presenter makes The presenter is
reference to practical unaware of practical The presenter is
application or application or
correlation with other correlation with other
disciplines. (This does disciplines. (This does
not apply to pure math not apply to pure math
mathematical
vocabulary and/or had
errors in the use of
mathematical terms.
The scope of the
presentation was
inappropriate.
The presenter lacked
depth of understanding
of relevant
mathematical concepts
and principles.
an absence of relevant
content.
unaware of practical
application or
correlation with other
disciplines. (This does

(This does not apply to
pure math
presentations.)
The project contained no
mathematical errors.
The presenter used The presenter used
appropriate mathematical
notation and used it
correctly.
not apply to pure math presentations.)
presentations.) The project contained
The project contained limited minor
no mathematical mathematical errors.
errors. The presenter used
appropriate
appropriate mathematical notation
mathematical notation with a minor error or
and used it correctly. two.
presentations.) not apply to pure math
The project contained presentations.)
multiple minor The project contained
mathematical errors or substantial
a major mathematical mathematical errors.
error. The presenter did not
The presenter did not use appropriate
use appropriate mathematical notation
mathematical notation and/or made notational
and/or made notational errors.
errors.
 There was unity, There was a logical and There was a generally The lack of sequential There was no logical
coherence and inherent appropriate sequence logical sequence to the flow seriously sequence to the flow of
logic in the sequence of to the presentation. presentation. interfered with the ideas.
DEVELOPMENT

ideas.
The presenter showed
sufficient examples and
counter-examples
Presenter knows what
areas for further research
or application exist on
the current topic.
Presentation was clear.
Transparencies were very
well thought out and to
PRESENTATION
The presenter showed
sufficient examples and
counter-examples.
Presenter can describe
possible avenues for
further research on the
current topic.
Presentation was clear.
Transparencies were
understandable and
The presenter showed objective of the The presenter did not
some examples and presentation. show examples or
counter-examples. The presenter showed counter-examples
Presenter cannot a very limited number Presenter cannot
describe avenues for of examples or describe avenues for
further research. counter-examples. further research.
Presenter cannot
describe avenues for
further research.
Presentation was clear. Presenter was unsure Presenter was totally
Transparencies were of the research and his disorganized.
understandable. or her work. Transparencies were

the point.
Presenter was very
knowledgeable and self-
confident.
Presenter RARELY looked
at notes.
Presenters answers to
the judges questions
indicated an exceptional
understanding of the
research topic.
The project was of
excellent quality in all
areas: research,
JUDGES OPINION
enhanced the Presenter spoke Transparencies were either absent or used
presentation. clearly. difficult to read. without apparent
Presenter spoke Presenter referred to Presenter read most of reason.
clearly. notes but didnt read the presentation from Presenter was unable
Presenter referred to notes. the note cards. to answer any
notes but didnt read Presenter could answer Presenter could answer questions.
notes. most of the questions a few questions. Presentation exceeds
Presenter could answer to the satisfaction of 10 minutes or is too
questions to the the judges. short to be effective.
satisfaction of the
judges.
The project was of The project was of The project was of The project was of poor
proficient quality in all good quality in all below average quality quality in all areas:
areas: research, areas: research, in all areas: research, research, planning,

planning, understanding planning, planning, planning, understanding and

and presentation.
The entire project is
appropriate for a student
beyond the presenters
current grade level,
ability to produce quality
work, procedures, depth
of understanding and
creativity.
understanding and understanding and understanding and presentation.
presentation. presentation. presentation. The entire project is
The entire project is The entire project is The project is inappropriate.
appropriate for a appropriate for a appropriate for a
student at the student slightly below student well below the
presenters current the presenters current presenters current
grade level, ability to grade level, ability to grade level, ability to
produce quality work, produce quality work, produce quality work,
procedures, depth of procedures, depth of procedures, depth of
understanding and understanding and understanding and
creativity. creativity. creativity.

CHECK WITH THE JUDGING COMMITTEE IN THE JUDGES TALLY ROOM BEFORE DISQUALIFYING THE PRESENTATION.

Rubric for judging MATHEMATICS projects.