Math 452 Evaluation Rubric (revised fall 2012)
This rubric serves as a starting point for discussion among the mathematics faculty about Math 452 grades. Not
all questions apply equally well to every project, and some are only appropriate for the first reader. Roughly
speaking, a score of 4 in an area corresponds to Honors-level achievement, 3 to Good, and 2 to Satisfactory, with
1 and 0 indicating substandard performance. However, the way in which these elements are weighted is topic-
dependent, and a particular set of scores does not guarantee a certain 452 grade. For double majors, the
evaluation of the project from the perspective of the other discipline is also significant in determining the grade.
1. Extent of Material Covered – Based on the material covered in the final written document and (for first
readers only) your weekly meetings with the student, which statement best describes the extent of the
student’s investigation? (Use 1a for all projects, and also 1b if it applies.)
1a. Extent of Investigation – Which statement best describes the extent of the student’s investigation?
(4 - Exceptional) The student did a thorough investigation into a focused topic, providing examples and going well beyond the
minimum extent required of a two-semester project.
(3 - Strong) The student did a comprehensive summary of a focused topic, providing examples and personalizing the material.
(2 - Adequate) The student did a good summary of material pertaining to a defined topic, and the extent is sufficient for a two-
semester investigation.
(1 - Marginal) The student covered some portions well, but failed to go far enough with others, and/or lacked a topical focus.
(0 - Unsatisfactory) The student provided a brief summary of the material, but the extent was insufficient for a two-semester
investigation and/or the content was so widely scattered as to make the central topic unclear.
1b. Extent of Application – If applicable, which statement best describes the student’s mathematical modeling?
(4 - Exceptional) The student has a thorough understanding of the application area, which is reflected with originality in an
innovative model.
(3 - Strong) The student has a thorough understanding of the application area, and all key aspects are reflected in the model.
(2 - Adequate) The student has an understanding of the application area, with some key aspects reflected in the model.
(1 - Marginal) The student has a weak understanding of the application area, resulting in a deficient model.
(0 - Unsatisfactory) The student has a clear lack of understanding of the application area, resulting in a poorly-designed model.
2. Appropriate Use of Resources (Use one or both parts, based on their applicability to the student’s project.)
2a. Use of Prior Literature – Allowing for differences based on mathematical subfields and the topic of the
student’s investigation, which statement best describes the use of related prior literature in the thesis?
(4 - Exceptional) The student used appropriate resources, integrated them into one coherent narrative, and understands the
place of their own work in the context of the wider subfield of mathematics.
(3 - Strong) The student successfully used appropriate resources, and some integration is apparent in the thesis.
(2 - Adequate) The student successfully used appropriate resources.
(1 - Marginal) The student’s use of resources is somewhat inadequate.
(0 - Unsatisfactory) The student’s use of resources is substantially inadequate, significantly impacting the quality of the thesis.
2b. Use of Computational Tools – Which statement best describes the student’s use and justification of
computational methods used in this investigation?
(4 - Exceptional) The student successfully used appropriate computational tools, and fully justified them (through literature
review and/or preliminary investigation).
(3 - Strong) The student successfully used appropriate computational tools, and mostly justified their use.
(2 - Adequate) The student successfully used appropriate computational tools, but the justification is weak.
(1 - Marginal) The student used inappropriate computational tools, did not justify their selection, and/or was only partially
successful in using them.
(0 - Unsatisfactory) The student was unsuccessful in using computational tools.