Rubric for judging MATHEMATICS projects

The city school International Dubai

SCORE = 5 SCORE = 4 FIRST SCORE = 3 SECOND SCORE = 2 THIRD SCORE = 1 THIRD PLACE
PERFECT SCORE PLACE PLACE PLACE
FIRST PLACE
 The presentation had  The presentation had a  The presentation had  The presentation had  The presentation had an
a sharp, distinct clear focus. adequate focus. vague focus. absence of focus.
focus.  The presenter used  The presenter used  The presenter did not  The presenter did not use
 The presenter used appropriate mathematical appropriate mathematical use appropriate appropriate mathematical
appropriate vocabulary and used it vocabulary with a minor mathematical vocabulary vocabulary and/or had errors
mathematical correctly. error or two. and/or had errors in the in the use of mathematical
vocabulary and used  The scope of the  The scope of the use of mathematical terms.
it correctly. presentation was presentation was terms.  The scope of the presentation
 The scope of the appropriate, considering somewhat limited,  The scope of the was inappropriate.
presentation was both the topic and time considering both the topic presentation was very  The presenter lacked depth of
excellent, considering allowed. and time allowed. limited, considering both understanding of relevant
both the topic and  The presenter showed  The presenter showed the topic and time mathematical concepts and
time allowed proficient depth of satisfactory depth of allowed. principles.
 The presenter showed understanding of relevant understanding of relevant  The presenter showed
excellent depth of mathematical concepts mathematical concepts limited depth of
understanding of and principles. and principles. understanding of
relevant mathematical relevant mathematical
concepts and concepts and principles.
principles.

 The presentation had  The presentation had  The presentation had  The presentation had  The presentation had an
substantial, specific specific and illustrative sufficient content. limited content. absence of relevant content.
and illustrative content.  The project contained  The project contained  The project contained
content.  The project contained no limited minor multiple minor substantial mathematical
 The project contained mathematical errors. mathematical errors. mathematical errors or a errors.
no mathematical  The presenter used  The presenter used major mathematical  The presenter did not use
errors. appropriate mathematical appropriate mathematical error. appropriate mathematical
 The presenter used notation and used it notation with a minor error  The presenter did not l notation and/or made notation
appropriate correctly. or two. use appropriate errors.
mathematical notation mathematical notation
and used it correctly. and/or made notational
errors.
 There was unity,
coherence and inherent
logic in the sequence of
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
the point.
 Presenter was very
knowledgeable and
selfconfident.
 Presenter RARELY looked
at notes.
 Presenter’s answers to
the judge’s questions
indicated an exceptional
understanding of the
research topic.
 There was a logical and  There was a generally  The lack of sequential  There was no logical
appropriate sequence to logical sequence to the flow seriously sequence to the flow of
the presentation. presentation. interfered with the ideas.
 The presenter showed  The presenter showed objective of the  The presenter did not
sufficient examples and some examples and presentation. show examples or
counter-examples. counter-examples.  The presenter showed counter-examples
 Presenter can describe  Presenter cannot a very limited number  Presenter cannot
possible avenues for describe avenues for of examples or counter- describe avenues for
further research on the further research. examples. further research.
current topic.  Presenter cannot
describe avenues for
further research.
 Presentation was clear.  Presentation was clear.  Presenter was unsure of  Presenter was totally
 Transparencies were  Transparencies were the research and his or disorganized.
understandable and understandable. her work.  Transparencies were
enhanced the  Presenter spoke clearly.  Transparencies were either absent or used
presentation.  Presenter referred to difficult to read. without apparent
 Presenter spoke clearly. notes but didn’t read  Presenter read most of reason.
 Presenter referred to notes. the presentation from  Presenter was unable
notes but didn’t read  Presenter could answer the note cards. to answer any
notes. most of the questions to  Presenter could answer questions.
 Presenter could answer the satisfaction of the a few questions.  Presentation exceeds
questions to the judges. 10 minutes or is too
satisfaction of the short to be effective.
judges.