Mathematics Research Project Detailed Rubric1
Mathematics Research Project Detailed Rubric1
Score 10 (PJAS 5) / Score 9 (PJAS 4) / Score 8 (PJAS 3) / Score 7,6 (PJAS 2) / Score 5,3, or 0 (1)Fulfillment of Purpose / 1) The presentation had a sharp, distinct and original focus.
2) The presenter introduced relevant mathematical vocabulary and used it correctly throughout the presentation.
3) The scope of the presentation was excellent considering the topic and available time.
4) The presenter showed excellent depth of understanding of relevant mathematical concepts and principles. / 1) The presentation had a clear focus.
2) The presenter used relevant mathematical vocabulary correctly and appropriately.
3) The scope of the presentation was appropriate considering the topic and available time.
4) The presenter showed proficient depth of understanding of relevant mathematical concepts and principles. / 1) The presentation had an adequate focus.
2) The presenter used appropriate mathematical vocabulary correctly throughout with limited minor errors.
3) The scope of the presentation was limited for the topic and available time.
4) The presenter showed satisfactory depth of understanding of relevant mathematical concepts and principles. / 1) The presentation had a vague focus.
2) The presenter did not use appropriate mathematical vocabulary correctly or had repeated errors in terminology.
3) The scope of the presentation was very limited for the topic and available time.
4) The presenter showed limited depth of understanding of relevant mathematical concepts and principles. / 1) The presentation had no focus.
2) The presenter did not use appropriate mathematical vocabulary in any way.
3) The scope of the presentation was inappropriate.
4) The presenter showed lacked any
depth of understanding of relevant mathematical concepts and principles.
Presentation / 1) Slides were well conceived, succinct, and informative.
2) Presenter was exceptionally knowledgeable and confident in delivering information.
3) Presenter rarely used notes, and spoke extemporaneously.
4) Presenter’ responses to judges’ questions indicate exceptional understanding of the research topic. / 1) Slides were understandable and enhanced the presentation.
2) Presenter was know-ledgeable and confident in delivering information.
3) Presenter referred to notes, but was not READING notes.
4) Presenter answered judges’ questions well. / 1) Slides were understandable.
2) Presenter spoke clearly with some confidence.
3) Presenter was READING notes or slides for portions of the presentation.
4) Most answers to judges’ questions were satisfactory. / 1) Slides were difficult to read.
2) Presenter was unsure about important information.
3) Presenter was READING notes or slides for a significant part of the presentation.
4) Presenter’s answers to judges’ questions were inadequate. / 1) Slides were illegible or bore little resemblance to presentation.
2) Presenter was disorganized.
3) Presenter was READING from notes or slides for the entire presentation.
4) Presenter could not answer any of judges’ questions effectively.
Content / 1) The presentation had exceptional substantial, specific, and illustrative content.
2) The presenter includes complete, specific example(s) of practical applications or connections with other disciplines.
3) The project was mathematically flawless. / 1) The presentation had adequate substantial, specific, and illustrative content.
2) The presenter includes adequate specific example(s) of practical applications or connections with other disciplines.
3) The project contained no mathematical errors. / 1) The presentation had sufficient content.
2) The presenter makes some reference(s) to specific example(s) of practical applications or connections with other disciplines.
3) The project contained limited and minor mathematical errors. / 1) The presentation had limited content.
2) The presenter is largely unaware of practical applications or connections with other disciplines.
3) The project contained repeated minor mathematical errors or had a major error that compromised the relevance of the project. / 1) The presentation had no relevant content.
2) The presenter is unaware of practical applications or connections with other disciplines.
3) The project contained repeated substantial mathematical errors.
Development / 1) There was unity, coherence, logic, and forethought in the sequence of ideas and slides presented.
2) The presenter showed sufficient examples, and creatively used examples and potential counterexamples in the presentation.
3) Presenter gave ample information about potential avenues for applications or further research on the topic.
4) Mathematically standard notation used appropriately, elegantly, and aggressively throughout the presentation. / 1) There was a logical and appropriate sequence of ideas and slides presented.
2) The presenter showed sufficient examples, and some potential counterexamples in the presentation.
3) Presenter gave adequate information about potential avenues for applications or further research on the topic.
4) Mathematically standard notation used appropriately and nearly flawlessly. / 1) There was a generally logical and appropriate sequence of ideas and slides presented.
2) The presenter showed some examples and some potential counterexamples in the presentation.
3) Presenter after promptinggave some information about potential avenues for applications or further research on the topic.
4) Mathematically standard notation used often with only minor errors. / 1) There was a lack of sequential organization seriously interfered with accomplishing the objective of the presentation.
2) The presenter showed a very limited number of examples and counter-examples.
3) Presenter even after prompting could provide little information on applications or further research on the topic.
4) Mathematically used seldom or with major errors that detract from presentation’s goals. / 1) There was no logical sequencing of the presentation.
2) The presenter showed no relevant examples and counter-examples.
3) Presenter even after prompting could not provide information on applications or further research on the topic.
4) No effort made to use standard mathematical notation.
Judge’s Opinion / 1) The project reflects excellent quality, procedures, depth of understanding, and creativity beyond the current grade level.
2) The presenter overcame obstacles and unusual circumstances or showed exceptional effort in completing project. / 1) The project reflects excellent quality, procedures, depth of understanding, and creativity at the current grade level.
2) The presenter put forth above-average effort in completing the project. / 1) The project reflects adequate quality, procedures, depth of understanding, and creativity at the current grade level.
2) The presenter put forth adequate effort in completing the project. / 1) The project reflects poor quality, procedures, depth of understanding, and creativity at the current grade level.
2) The presenter put forth less than adequate effort in completing the project. / 1) The project is either not appropriate or severely lacking in quality.
2) The presenter put little to no effort in the project.
Fulfillment of Purpose:1) ______2) ______3) ______4) ______Average:______
Presentation:1) ______2) ______3) ______4) ______Average: ______
Content:1) ______2) ______3) ______Average: ______
Development:1) ______2) ______3) ______4) ______Average: ______
Judge’s Opinion:1) ______2) ______Average: ______
Total: ______
Modified fromPennsylvania Junior Academy of Science. (n.d.). Presentation Guidelines. Retrieved February 17, 2016, from Pennsylvania Junior Academy of Science website: