iRubric: Engineering Design Process rubric

The process for generating and comparing possible design solutions was comprehensive, iterative, and consistently defensible, making a viable and well-justified design highly likely; the design solution ultimately chosen was well-justified and demonstrated attention to all design requirements; the plan of action has considerable merit and would easily support repetition and testing for effectiveness by others.

The process for generating and comparing possible design solutions was thorough, iterative, and generally defensible, making a viable design likely; the design solution chosen was justified and demonstrated attention to most if not all design requirements; the plan of action would support repetition and testing for effectiveness by others.

The process for generating and comparing possible design solutions was adequate and generally iterative and defensible, making a viable design possible; the choice of design solution was explained with reference to at least some design requirements; the plan of action might not clearly or fully support repetition and testing for effectiveness by others.

The process for generating a possible design solution was partial or overly general and only somewhat iterative and/or defensible, raising issues with the viability of the design solution chosen; that solution was not sufficiently explained with reference to design requirements; there is insufficient detail to allow for testing for replication of results.

The process for generating a possible design solution was incomplete and was only minimally iterative and/or defensible; any attempted explanation for the design solution chosen lacked support related to design requirements and cannot be tested.

There is no evidence an attempt to arrive at a design solution through an iterative process based on design requirements.

The final prototype iteration is clearly and fully explained and is constructed with enough detail to assure that objective data on all or nearly all design requirements could be determined;

The final prototype iteration is clearly and adequately explained and is constructed with enough detail to assure that objective data on many design requirements could be determined;

The final prototype iteration is clearly and adequately explained and is constructed with enough detail to assure that objective data on some design requirements could be determined;

The final prototype iteration is explained only somewhat clearly and/or completely and is constructed with enough detail to assure that objective data on at least a few design requirements could be determined;

The final prototype iteration is only minimally explained and/or is not constructed with enough detail to assure that objective data on at least one design requirements could be determined

Any attempt to explain the final prototype iteration is unclear or is missing altogether; there is no evidence that the prototype would facilitate testing by suitable means for any of the design requirements.

the student demonstrates considerable understanding of testing procedure, including the gathering and analysis of resultant data; the analysis of the effectiveness with which the design met stated goals includes a consistently detailed explanation

the student demonstrates ample understanding of testing procedure, including the gathering and analysis of resultant data; the analysis of the effectiveness with which the design met stated goals includes a generally detailed explanation

the student demonstrates adequate understanding of testing procedure, including the gathering and analysis of resultant data; the analysis of the effectiveness with which the design met stated goals includes a somewhat detailed explanation

the student demonstrates partial or overly general understanding of testing procedure, including the gathering and analysis of resultant data; the analysis of the effectiveness with which the design met stated goals includes a partial explanation [and summary] of the data

the student demonstrates minimal understanding of testing procedure, including the gathering and analysis of resultant data; the analysis of the effectiveness with which the design met stated goals includes an attempted explanation [and summary] of the data

Any test(s) for requirement(s) or attempts at physical or mathematical modeling fail to demonstrate even minimal understanding of testing procedure, including the gathering and analysis of resultant data; OR there is no evidence of testing or physical or mathematical modeling to address any requirements.

Student is excellently prepared for and participates in project discussion without prompting. Summarized results from testing are communicated clearly and effectively. Student poses and responds to specific questions to clarify or follow up on information shared from other classmates.

Student is adequately prepared for and participates in project discussion without prompting. Summarized results from testing are communicated clearly. Student poses and responds to specific questions to clarify or follow up on information shared from other classmates.

Student is minimally prepared for and participates in project discussion with prompting. Summarized results from testing are shared. Student infrequently poses and responds to questions to clarify or follow up on information shared from other classmates

Student is not prepared for and inadequately participates in project discussion. Summarized results from testing are shared, but are complete or clear. Communication with classmates by posing and responding to questions is limited.

Student is not prepared for and inadequately participates in project discussion. Summarized results from testing are shared, but are incomplete or unclear. Communication with classmates by posing and responding to questions is limited.

Student does not participate in project discussion.