- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Problem Solving Challenge-Gumdrop Chunkin' rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Problem Solving Challenge-Gumdrop Chunkin' Engineering Design Process: Angry Bird Catapult This rubric is used to assess performance of students' gumdrop chunkin' designs. Rubric Code: CXAA983 By mdhinkle Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Engineering Type: Project Grade Levels: 6-8, 9-12

Problem Solving Challenge Gumdrop Chunkin'
	Excellent 5 pts	Average 3 pts	Poor 2 pts
Accuracy	Excellent Device launched gumdrop exactly 4 feet (hit target) 80%-100% of attempts.	Average Device launched gumdrop exactly 4 feet (hit target) 60-89% of attempts.	Poor Device launched gumdrop exactly 4 feet (hit target) below 59% of attempts.
Repeatability	Excellent Device could launch, reload and relaunch repeatedly(at least 5 consecutive times).	Average Device could launch, reload and relaunch between 2-4 consecutive times.	Poor Device could launch gumdrop only once.
Resources/Materials	Excellent Great use of materials and resources! You maximized your use of materials and created a great Gumdrop Chucker!	Average Good use of the materials and plan. The model was nice and well put together, but there were many materials that could have been used to make a better device.	Poor Your design lacked materials that were needed to make a function device. It was really hard for me to tell what you built or were building.
Participation/Teamwork	Excellent Great use of time. The group stayed on task during each phase of the process.The group never had to be redirected. Great teamwork!	Average Good use of time, there were a few times when the group got off task, but for the majority of the task time was well spent. Average Teamwork.	Poor Did not use time well. Time was wasted during the design, build, and test phases. You had to be reminded several times to stay on task. Poor Teamwork.
Creativity	Excellent Design features are distinct-most creative and unique of the class!	Average Design features are innovative, but similar to other groups' design.	Poor Clearly you copied other designs and/or slapped materials together just to say you built something.