cbzjhde

Rubric for MTH 482 Great Theorem Reports

Critical Thinking Components:

1. Interpretation of the historical context from which your great theorem was born

Strong: The historical context of the theorem is present in appropriately thorough detail, based on reliable sources. Exposition shows clear understanding of the ideas surrounding the development of the theorem. The most important ideas have been recognized and emphasized.

Adequate: The historical context is described in broad terms that highlight some of the important ideas leading up to the great theorem. Nearly all the sources are reliable. The more important ideas are generally emphasized, but there are instances of failure to distinguish between important and less important ideas.

Weak: The historical context is misrepresented or presented so superficially that clear understanding is not demonstrated. Cited sources are not always reliable. There is failure to distinguish between important and less important information or ideas.

2. Interpretation of the significance of your great theorem for the subsequent development of mathematics

Strong: The relationship of the theorem to subsequent work is presented in appropriately thorough detail. Exposition indicates a clear understanding of the significance of the theorem. The most important ideas have been recognized and emphasized.

Adequate: The impact of the theorem on subsequent mathematics is considered, but not thoroughly. There are instances of failure to distinguish between important and less important information.

Weak: The relationship of the theorem to subsequent work has been overlooked or is lacking in accurate detail. There is failure to distinguish between important and less important information.

3. Uncovers di↵erent perspectives or contradictions in historical development of the great theorem

Strong: Compares, contrasts, and evaluates di↵erent perspectives (interpretations or explanations) of historical accounts of the great theorem.

Adequate: Uncovers di↵erent perspectives and acknowledges them in the report, but tends to focus on a single perspective.

Weak: Does not acknowledge the existence of multiple perspectives.

4. Carves out a piece of history to develop in the paper

Strong: Given that the choices of topics for the great theorem are rather extensive, the student identifies a significant event in the historical development of the great theorem and builds a paper around that event.

Adequate: The paper is not focused on a significant event, but rather touches on several important developments, without picking any one idea on which to focus.

Weak: Touches superficially on lots of ideas that seem disconnected in time or seem to be simply a chronological sequence of events.

Content Components

5. Completeness of mathematical details of your great theorem

Strong: All needed concepts are defined and explained in reasonable depth and detail. The work shows that the writer has made connections with the mathematics and has achieved a level of mastery or fluency.

Adequate: Most of the needed concepts are explained, but more depth and detail are needed. There is clear evidence of the writer’s attempts to master the mathematical ideas and to express them in his or her own words.

Weak: There are significant gaps in the exposition of the concepts, or the presentation is too superficial. There is little evidence of making a true connection with the mathematics.

6. Correctness of mathematical details of your great theorem

Strong: The theorem and related mathematical concepts are accurately expressed.

Adequate: Most of the mathematical ideas are accurately expressed, but there are some flaws.

Weak: Some essential concepts are misrepresented, or the work contains substantial mathematics errors.

7. Comprehension of mathematical details of your great theorem

Strong: The work demonstrates that the student has mastered the mathematical concepts connected with the theorem.

Adequate: There is some evidence that the student understands most of the mathematical results, but doubts remain.

Weak: The work fails to demonstate that the mathematical concepts are substantially understood.

Writing Components

8. Organization of expository writing

Strong: The paper has a clear and sensible structure. Each section has a clear purpose, and the paper as a whole follows a coherent plan.

Adequate: There is evidence that this paper was organized according to a plan, but the purpose of some sections is not clear.

Weak: The overall structure of the paper is unclear and disorganized.

9. Clarity and coherence of expository writing

Strong: The prose flows smoothly from one idea to the next. Logical connections among paragraphs and sen- tences are clear and show the student’s correct understanding of the ideas. Claims are thoroughly supported or else the weakness of the argument is acknowledged.

Adequate: The ideas are presented in a reasonable sequence, and in most instrances, the connections between paragraphs are logical. But the prose does not quite flow smoothly.

Weak: The flow of ideas is di�cult to follow. Often there are logical errors or gaps from one sentence or paragraph to the next. Grammatical errors or awkwardly worded sentences distract from the reader’s attention.

10. Quality of sources and citations

Strong: All important sources have been consulted, and all citations seem accurate and complete. Original sources have been used if possible.

Adequate: The list of sources is adequate, but the work could have benefitted from perspectives or information available in other sources. Citations seem accurate and complete.

Weak: The list of sources is not adequate.