iRubric: Portfolio Prototyping Section - Fall 2012 rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Portfolio Prototyping Section - Fall 2012

This is the rubric for grading the Prototyping section of the Student Portfolios in the Integrated Projects Curriculum of Messiah College Engineering Department. (v1.0, created 10/11 by JM, v2.0, revised 03/12 by DP, v3.0, revised 08/12 by the department)

Rubric Code: Q9W2B5

By mcengin

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Engineering

Type: Assessment

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Reflection 33.33 %
	Exemplary/Excellent 5 pts	Accomplished/Good 4 pts	Developing/Fair 3 pts	Deficient/Poor 2 pts	Not Applicable (N/A)
Setting / Context 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent References the project assignment and its relationship to the project goals, as well as the date of completion, timeliness of sub-mission, and co-workers.	Accomplished/Good References the project assignment, date of completion, and co-workers involved.	Developing/Fair References only the project assignment that lead to the portfolio entry.	Deficient/Poor Does not describe the relationship of the portfolio entry with the overall project.	Not Applicable
Appearance 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Properly formatted word-processed document on “resume-quality” paper.	Accomplished/Good Properly formatted word-processed document.	Developing/Fair Neatly handwritten or unformatted type.	Deficient/Poor Illegible or sloppy.	Not Applicable
Writing Mechanics 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Writing is free of grammatical and spelling errors.	Accomplished/Good Writing is mostly free of grammatical and spelling errors.	Developing/Fair Grammatical and spelling errors are present but do not detract from the reflection.	Deficient/Poor Grammatical and spelling errors detract from the reflection. The FYS professor picks up the red pen to correct them…	Not Applicable
Reflection 2 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Summary, mastery of the category, and personal growth represented by the entry.	Accomplished/Good Summary of the student’s contribution and an explanation of how the entry demonstrates the mastery of the category.	Developing/Fair Pure summary of the student’s contribution to entry.	Deficient/Poor Rambling gibberish. It appears the writer is trying to fill in empty space.	Not Applicable
Entry 66.67 %
	Exemplary/Excellent 5 pts	Accomplished/Good 4 pts	Developing/Fair 3 pts	Deficient/Poor 2 pts	Not Applicable (N/A)
Documentation 1 pts Drawings Schematics Flowcharts Code Listings	Exemplary/Excellent Drawings and specifications are accurate, organized, complete and furnished in electronic format. All code is properly commented and flowcharted.	Accomplished/Good Documentation is accurate and complete but not properly organized. For example does not use standard symbols or orthographic views do not adhere to standard conventions.	Developing/Fair Documentation is incomplete or inaccurate. For example dimensions are missing or are overspecified.	Deficient/Poor Documentation is incomplete, inaccurate and not properly organized.	Not Applicable Not Applicable
Fit & Function Review 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Computer simulation tools, physical models, component mock-ups have been used to validate component fit or function prior to prototype implementation.	Accomplished/Good Deficiencies in Fit & Function Review did not result in prototype deficiencies sufficient to impact the prototype’s usefulness but impacted the cost and effort involved in implementation.	Developing/Fair Deficiencies in Fit & Function Review resulted in prototype deficiencies sufficient to impact the prototype’s usefulness and impacted the cost and effort involved in implementation. A restart was not required.	Deficient/Poor Deficiencies in Fit & Function Review necessitated a restart in prototype implementation.	Not Applicable Not Applicable
Material / Component Selection 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Material or component options were thoroughly researched and compared for best fit to design requirements.	Accomplished/Good Deficiencies in Material/Component selection did not result in prototype deficiencies sufficient to impact the prototype’s usefulness but impacted the cost and effort involved in implementation.	Developing/Fair Deficiencies in Material/Component selection resulted in prototype deficiencies sufficient to impact the prototype’s usefulness and impacted the cost and effort involved in implementation. A restart was not required.	Deficient/Poor Deficiencies in Material/Component selection necessitated a restart in prototype implementation.	Not Applicable Not Applicable
Fabrication process plan 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Fabrication process plan was sufficient to allow prototype to be fabricated as planned. Process plan formulated and reviewed with advisor or technician prior to starting fabrication.	Accomplished/Good Deficiencies in the fabrication process plan did not result in prototype deficiencies sufficient to impact the prototype’s usefulness but impacted the cost and effort involved in implementation.	Developing/Fair Deficiencies in the fabrication process plan resulted in prototype deficiencies sufficient to impact the prototype’s usefulness and impacted the cost and effort involved in implementation. A restart was not required.	Deficient/Poor Deficiencies in the fabrication process plan necessitated a restart in prototype implementation.	Not Applicable Not Applicable
Product Quality Workmanship 1 pts	Exemplary/Excellent Finished prototype is well constructed, accurately fabricated to specifications, fully functional and suitable for design verification.	Accomplished/Good Finished prototype has implementation/fabrication deficiencies but is of sufficient quality to verify design.	Developing/Fair Finished prototype has implementation/fabrication deficiencies that degrade the ability to verify the design.	Deficient/Poor Finished prototype is so poorly constructed that it is not suitable for design verification.	Not Applicable Not Applicable

Keywords:

IPC, Integrated Project Projects, prototyping

Subjects:

Engineering

Types:

Assessment

Discuss this rubric