| Are the student’s arguments clearly articulated? | | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Are the student’s arguments logically developed? | | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Does the student make a convincing case? | | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Is the student able to employ an original perspective on the issues? | | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Is the material being presented factually correct? | | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Is the writing quality good? | | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Is the material taken from another source, but being presented as the student’s work? | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | F grade or rework w/ penalty |
| Specifications | The program works and meets all of the specifications. | The program works and produces the correct results and displays them correctly. It also meets most of the other specifications. | The program produces correct results but does not display them correctly. | The program is producing incorrect results. |
| Readability | The code is exceptionally well organized and very easy to follow. | The code is fairly easy to read. | The code is readable only by someone who knows what it is supposed to be doing. | The code is poorly organized and very difficult to read. |
| Reusability | The code could be reused as a whole or each routine could be reused. | Most of the code could be reused in other programs. | Some parts of the code could be reused in other programs. | The code is not organized for reusability. |
| Documentation | The documentation is well written and clearly explains what the code is accomplishing and how. | The documentation consists of embedded comment and some simple header documentation that is somewhat useful in understanding the code. | The documentation is simply comments embedded in the code with some simple header comments separating routines. | The documentation is simply comments embedded in the code and does not help the reader understand the code. |
| Efficiency | The code is extremely efficient without sacrificing readability and understanding. | The code is fairly efficient without sacrificing readability and understanding. | The code is brute force and unnecessarily long. | The code is huge and appears to be patched together. |
| Strategy/Procedures | Uses an efficient and effective strategy to solve the problem. | Uses an effective strategy to solve the problem. | Uses a strategy to solve the problem but it is not effective. | Does not use a strategy to solve the problem. |
| Explanation | Explanation is detailed and clear. | Explanation is clear. | Explanation is a little difficult to understand, but includes critical components. | Explanation is difficult to understand and is missing several components OR was not included. |
| Mathematical Concepts | Shows complete understanding of the mathematical concepts used to solve the problem. | Shows substantial understanding of the mathematical concepts used to solve the problem. | Shows some understanding of the mathematical concepts needed to solve the problem. | Shows very limited understanding of the underlying concepts needed to solve the problem OR is not written. |
| Mathematical Terminology and Symbols | Advanced, correct terminology and symbols are used, making it very easy to understand what was done. | Correct terminology and symbols are used, making it easy to understand what was done. | Correct terminology and symbols are used, but it is sometimes not easy to understand what was done. | There is little use, or a lot of inappropriate use, of terminology and symbols. |
| Neatness and Organization | The work is presented in a neat, detailed, organized fashion that is easy to read. | The work is presented in a neat and organized fashion that is easy to read. | The work is presented in an organized fashion but may be hard to read. | The work appears sloppy and unorganized. It is hard to know what information goes together. |
