Math Assisgnment

Unsatisfactory

Emerging

Proficient

Exemplary

Assignment Components

Application of Hamilton and Huntington-Hill formulas to determine number of seats for each state.

Analysis of those results to determine state average constituency.

(CO1, CO2, CO3)

Application of both the Hamilton and Huntington-Hill formulas is inaccurate, resulting in inappropriate number of seats for each state.

Analysis of the results from both the Hamilton and Huntington-Hill formulas are inaccurate and results in the inappropriate state average constituency for the correct formula; or analysis is too underdeveloped or too unclear and interferes with comprehension.

Application of either the Hamilton or Huntington-Hill formulas is accurate, resulting in appropriate number of seats for each state. However, the other formula is inaccurate.

Analysis of the results from either the Hamilton or Huntington-Hill formulas is accurate and results in the appropriate state average constituency for the correct formula; or analysis is unclear and confusing.

Application of both the Hamilton and Huntington-Hill formulas is accurate, resulting in appropriate number of seats for each state.

Analysis of the results from both the Hamilton and Huntington-Hill formulas is accurate and results in the appropriate state average constituency.

Application of both the Hamilton and Huntington-Hill formulas is accurate, resulting in appropriate number of seats for each state, and clearly described to demonstrate mastery of all calculations.

Analysis of the results from both the Hamilton and Huntington-Hill formulas is accurate and results in the appropriate state average constituency. Analysis is clear and detailed.

Analysis of results from above to determine if Alabama paradox occurred.

(CO1, CO2, CO3)

Determination of whether or not an Alabama paradox occurred in both the Hamilton and the Huntington-Hill results is inaccurate or too underdeveloped or unclear to assess.

Determination of whether or not an Alabama paradox occurred in both the Hamilton and the Huntington-Hill results is somewhat accurate, but is somewhat unclear or underdeveloped.

Determination of whether or not an Alabama paradox occurred in both the Hamilton and the Huntington-Hill results is clear and accurate.

Determination of whether or not an Alabama paradox occurred in both the Hamilton and the Huntington-Hill results is clear, accurate, and uses several specific examples to support its analysis.

Analysis of state boundaries and population effects on representational balance.

(CO4, CO5)

Analysis of effects on representational balance is unclear, underdeveloped, or inaccurate throughout. It lacks examples from state boundaries or population to support its claims.

Analysis of effects on representational balance is somewhat unclear or inaccurate in spots. It includes examples from state boundaries or population to support its claims.

Analysis of effects on representational balance is clear and accurate. It includes specific, accurate examples from both state boundaries and population to support its claims.

Analysis of effects on representational balance is clear and accurate. It includes specific, accurate examples from both state boundaries and population to support its claims. Examples provided are demonstrated mathematically.

Evaluation of the apportionment methods.

(CO4, CO5)

Evaluation of apportionment does not reference data found to support the claim. It evaluates the Hamilton or the Huntington-Hill results independently, but evaluation is underdeveloped or inaccurate. Evaluation of the apportionment method may be present but is inaccurate. Evaluation is clearly lacking development and clarity.

Evaluation of apportionment vaguely references data found to support the claim. It evaluates the Hamilton or the Huntington-Hill results independently or evaluates the apportionment method as a whole without using specific examples for each. The evaluation is somewhat inaccurate or unclear.

Evaluation of apportionment references specific examples from the data found to support the claim. It evaluates the Hamilton and the Huntington-Hill results independently or evaluates the apportionment method as a whole without using specific examples for each.

Evaluation of apportionment references specific examples from the data found to support the claim. It evaluates both the Hamilton and the Huntington-Hill results independently, and it evaluates the apportionment method as a whole using examples for each.

Proposed solution to achieve fair representation.

(CO4, CO5)

Proposal is underdeveloped or inaccurate. No examples are provided to support solution’s effectiveness.

Proposal is somewhat clear or may have elements that are inaccurate. It provides a few to any examples, but examples do not clearly support solution’s effectiveness.

Proposal is clear and accurate. It provides specific examples to support the solution’s effectiveness.

Proposal is clear, accurate, and insightful. It provides a variety of specific examples that demonstrate the solution’s effectiveness in a variety of settings.

Writing Components

Organization

Introduction

Thesis

Transitions

Conclusion

Introduction is limited or missing entirely.

The paper lacks a thesis statement.

Transitions are infrequent, illogical, or missing entirely.

Conclusion is limited or missing entirely.

Introduction is present but incomplete or underdeveloped.

The paper is loosely organized around a thesis that may have to be inferred.

Transitions are sporadic.

Conclusion is present, but incomplete or underdeveloped.

Introduction has a clear opening, provides background information, and states the topic.

The paper is organized around an arguable, clearly stated thesis statement.

Transitions are appropriate and help the flow of ideas.

Conclusion summarizes main argument and has a clear ending.

Introduction catches the reader’s attention, provides compelling and appropriate background info, and clearly states the topic.

The paper is well organized around an arguable, focused thesis.

Thoughtful transitions clearly show how ideas relate.

Conclusion leaves the reader with a sense of closure and provides concluding insights.

Usage and Mechanics

Grammar

Spelling

Sentence structure

Writing contains numerous errors in spelling, grammar, and/or sentence structure that severely interferes with readability and comprehension.

Errors in spelling and grammar exist that somewhat interfere with readability and/or comprehension.

Writing follows conventions of spelling and grammar throughout. Errors are infrequent and do not interfere with readability or comprehension.

The paper is basically error free in terms of mechanics. Grammar and mechanics help establish a clear idea and aid the reader in following the writer’s logic.

APA Elements

Attribution

Paraphrasing

Quotations

No attempt at APA format.

APA format is attempted to paraphrase, quote, and cite, but errors are significant.

Using APA format, accurately paraphrased, quoted, and cited in many spots throughout when appropriate or called for. Errors present are somewhat minor.

Using APA format, accurately paraphrased, quoted, and cited throughout the presentation when appropriate or called for. Only a few minor errors present.

Style

Audience

Word Choice

Writing often slips into first and/or second person.

Word choice is consistently inaccurate, unclear, or inappropriate for the audience.

Writing sometimes slips into first and/or second person.

Word choice is sometimes inaccurate, unclear, or inappropriate for the audience.

Writing remains in third person throughout writing.

Word choice is accurate, clear and appropriate for the audience.

Writing remains professional in third person throughout writing.

Word choice is precise, appropriate for the audience, and memorable.