iRubric: Robotic Engineering rubric

Uses standard design.

No design process (from initial concept through build, test, refinement) communicated.

Strategy based only on ease of task - did not maximize time, combine mission tasks or consider points.

Some forethought in initial design.

Refinement of robot and programs not communicated.

Strategy often based on ease of task -few risks taken.

Some consideration of time, mission combinations or maximizing points.

Basic understanding of design process, evidence of conceptual planning, building, testing, refining of robot, manipulators, programs.

Effective strategic planning, combining mission tasks, plotting routes, using manipulators and/or program slots.

Communicates complete design process, from initial concept through build, test, and refinement.

Excellent/innovative strategy, combining mission tasks, plotting routes, maximizing points.

Programs disorganized

Programs inefficient

Results unpredictable

Sensors inadequately used.

Programs do not accomplish expected tasks.

Variables, loops, subroutines and conditions defined but unused.

Student can't describe what run will do.

Programs somewhat organized

Programs efficient at completing some tasks.

Results somewhat unpredictable

Programs do some of what is expected

Variables, loops, subroutines and conditions, if used, not understood.

Programs organized.

Programs efficient at completing most tasks.

Programs do what they're expected to do.

Sensors used effectively, if used.

Variables, loops, subroutines and conditions, if used, are needed.

Kids can describe most of mission.

Programs logically organized.

Programs very efficient.

Programs always work, even for complex tasks.

Sensors, if used, guarantee certain actions in every trial.

Programs work in competition as in practice.

Variables, loops, subroutines and conditions, if used, are effective.

Children can describe mission and reference the program.

Difficulty with robot assembly during demo.

Base weak, falls apart when handled or run.

Attachments, if used, weak and fall apart often; difficulty completing task; or overly complex. Robot design from book, little modification by team.

Robot assembly done with few errors.

Robot base structure has some stabliity.

Attachments, if used, difficult to apply; and /or not modular; not precise or not repeatable.

Robot show signs of team's design ideas.

Slow robot assembly, with no errors

Robot base stable, but not robust.

Attachments, if used, modular; function most of the time; and/or take some time to assemble; somewhat precese and /or repeatable.

Robot designed by team.

Robot assembles easily.

Robot base stable and robust.

Attachments, if used, modular, function as expected and easily added/removed from robot. Robot displays wide range of capabilities.

Attachments, if used, performtasks extremely well and are repeatable.

Robot designed by team; design is unique and creative.

None

Recognizes, attempts with little or no success.

Can perform troubleshooting most of the time. Moderate success getting robot to achieve attempted objectives.

Always performs troubleshooting without being asked. Works on robotic design, programming and features until objectives are achieved.

None; detracts from unity and excellence.

Very little. Is cooperative and offers some ideas in group settings.

Can be a good leader. Is cooperative and occasionally helps others in group setting.

Excellent leader. Clearly leads team and in group settings with all aspects of robot construction, programming and achievement of objectives. Neutralizes disagreements and compromises when appropriate.