| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (3-4) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject Knowledge | Fully understands the experiment, including its purpose and results; able to discuss experimental protocols in a clear and precise manner. | Has a very good understanding of the experiment, its purpose and results; able to discuss experimental protocols in a reasonably clear manner. | Has some understanding of the experiment, its purpose and results; almost able to discuss experimental protocols in a clear manner. | Has poor understanding of the experiment, its purpose and results; unable to discuss experimental protocols. | |
| Data Analysis and Interpretation | Always analyses and interprets data correctly and precisely; always draws correct and useful conclusion; always compares theory against experiment and calculates related error. | Analyzes and interprets data correctly most of the time; most of the conclusions are correct and useful; compares theory against experimental data and calculates related error most of the time. | Analyzes and interprets data correctly occasionally; some conclusions are incorrect; occasionally compares theory against experimental data and calculates related error. | Analyzes and interprets data incorrectly most of the time; many conclusions are incorrect; most of the time never attempts to compare theory against experiment data. | |
| Ability to Conduct Experiment | Quite able to conduct the entire experiment with negligible help from the lab instructor. | Able to conduct experiment with some help from the lab instructor. | Able to conduct experiment with a lot of help from the lab instructor. | Unable to conduct experiment on his own; lab instructor provides help in almost every step of the experiment. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Presentation | Information is provided in an excellent and organized manner with complete details. | Most of the information is provided but presented fairly/poorly. | Partial information is provided but presented fairly/poorly. | No information related to the experiment is provided. | |
| Calculation / Coding | Calculation / Coding is complete and details are provided. | Calculation / Coding is complete but details are missing. | Calculation / Coding is incomplete. | Calculation / Coding is missing. | |
| Observation / Program Result | Observations / program results are complete and details are provided. | Observations / program results are complete but details are missing. | Observations / Program results are incomplete. | Observations / Program results are missing. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responsiveness to Questions / Accuracy | Responds well, quick and very accurate all the time. | Generally responsive and accurate most of the time. | Responsive but evasive or inaccurate most of the times. | Non-responsive. | |
| Depth of Knowledge | Demonstration of full knowledge of the subject with explanation and elaboration. | At ease with content and able to elaborate and explain to some degree. | Only basic concepts are demonstrated and interpreted. | No grasp of information. Clearly, no knowledge of subject matter. No questions are answered. No interpretation made. | |
| Observation / Program Result | Observations / program results are complete and details are provided. | Observations / program results are complete but details are missing. | Observations / Program results are incomplete. | Observations / Program results are missing. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implementation and Completion | Project is completed without any external assistance and is working properly. | Project is completed with quite less technical assistance from the instructor or others in order to complete the project and its working properly. OR Project is completed with no external assistance at all but is not working properly. | Project completed but not working properly. OR Project is completed and working properly but with unreasonable amount of technical assistance from the instructor or others in order to compete the project. | The project is not implemented or not completed with implementation in initial phase only. | |
| Project Complexity | Student chose an innovative, challenging project that required an effort that exceeds the normal expectations for the course project. | Student chose a complex project with good technical challenges that required innovative problem solving and engineering. | Student chose a project with acceptable scope that solves a technical problem and required some technical expertise in hardware and / or software. | Student chose simple project with limited scope that required little creative development technical expertise. | |
| Testing and Analysis | Students developed a good systematic procedure for testing hardware/ or software that allowed for quick identification of technical problems. Student was very good at analyzing and quickly solving all technical problems. | Student demonstrated the ability to test hardware and/ or software in order to identify technical problems, and was able to solve any problems with little or no assistance. | Student was able to identify the problems in hardware and/or software but required some assistance in fixing some of the problems. | Student demonstrated or no ability to troubleshoot and/ or software the project. | |
| Appearance | Circuit wiring and components are perfectly organized and proper prototyping is done. OR Coding structure is very clear with organized and visible input / output parameters. | Circuit wiring and components are organized and some prototyping is done. OR Coding structure is somewhat understandable and input /output parameters are extractable. | Circuit wiring and components are disorganized but some prototyping is done. OR Coding structure is evasive but input/ output parameters are somewhat extractable. | Circuit wiring and components are disorganized and not easy to follow. No prototyping at all. OR Coding structure is evasive and input/ output parameters are not visible or extractable. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organization / Structure | Information presented in a logical, interesting way, which is easy to follow. Results and conclusions are stated and reflect complete knowledge of the experiment. | Generally responsive and accurate most of the time. | Information is presented in some what logical manner. Results and conclusions are sated and reflect acceptable knowledge of the experiment. | Sequence of information exists with quite less continuity and in less logical manner. Results and conclusions are stated but reflect little knowledge of the experiment. | Sequence of information is difficult to follow. No logical manner or continuity. Results and conclusions are not stated. |
| Research and Gather Information | Collected a great deal of information - all related to the topic. | Collected some basic information most relates to the topic. | Collects very little information - some relates to the topic. | Did not collect any information that relates to the topic. | |
| Procedure | Clear definition of solution, procedure and methods. Different alternatives are considered and evaluated. | Solution procedure and methods are not always clearly defined. Few alternative designs are evaluated. | Outlines a general procedure but does not clearly identify methods. | No procedure, tries things out unsystematically. | |
| Results and Discussion | Clearly discuss what results mean and what conclusions may be drawn from them. Cites publishes stan- dards or other related reports. | Generally clear discussion of results and conclusions, but may miss some points. Some use of references and published standards. | Limited discussion of results and conclusions. Little or no reference to published standards or other reports. | Radar can gain very little information about why the project was done and what the results may mean. No references to other studies. | |
| Data Presentation | Present data very clearly using appropriate graphics/ waveforms. Figure captions and units are always included. | Presents data in appropriate manner graphs/ waveform. Figure captions and units are included most of the time. | Data presentation is not that clear. Graphs/ waveforms, figure captions and units are not always included. | Presents data in a very obscure manner. Graphs/waveforms, figure captions and units are never included. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organization / Structure | Information presented in a logical, interesting way, which is easy to follow. Results and conclusions are stated and reflect complete knowledge of the experiment. | Generally responsive and accurate most of the time. | Information is presented in some what logical manner. Results and conclusions are sated and reflect acceptable knowledge of the experiment. | Sequence of information exists with quite less continuity and in less logical manner. Results and conclusions are stated but reflect little knowledge of the experiment. | Sequence of information is difficult to follow. No logical manner or continuity. Results and conclusions are not stated. |
| Research and Gather Information | Collected a great deal of information - all related to the topic. | Collected some basic information most relates to the topic. | Collects very little information - some relates to the topic. | Did not collect any information that relates to the topic. | |
| Procedure | Clear definition of solution, procedure and methods. Different alternatives are considered and evaluated. | Solution procedure and methods are not always clearly defined. Few alternative designs are evaluated. | Outlines a general procedure but does not clearly identify methods. | No procedure, tries things out unsystematically. | |
| Results and Discussion | Clearly discuss what results mean and what conclusions may be drawn from them. Cites publishes stan- dards or other related reports. | Generally clear discussion of results and conclusions, but may miss some points. Some use of references and published standards. | Limited discussion of results and conclusions. Little or no reference to published standards or other reports. | Radar can gain very little information about why the project was done and what the results may mean. No references to other studies. | |
| Data Presentation | Present data very clearly using appropriate graphics/ waveforms. Figure captions and units are always included. | Presents data in appropriate manner graphs/ waveform. Figure captions and units are included most of the time. | Data presentation is not that clear. Graphs/ waveforms, figure captions and units are not always included. | Presents data in a very obscure manner. Graphs/waveforms, figure captions and units are never included. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | Presentation is clear and logical. Listeners can easily follow line of reasoning. | Presentation is generally clear. A few minor points may be confusing. | Listener can follow presentation with effort. Organization not well thought out. | Presentation is very confused and unclear. Listeners cannot follow it. | |
| Content: Depth | Design, methods, results, conclusions are not clearly stated. Implications of results and “where do we go from here” discussed. | Description of project and results is generally clear. Some discussion of what results mean. | Some components of project description are minimal or missing. Little discussion of what results mean. | Description of projects and results is very difficult to follow. No discussion of meaning of results. Listeners learn little. | |
| Confidence | Is very confident and explains the details properly. Proper eye contact is maintained all the time with proper presentation gestures. | Is confident to some extent with quite less eye contact and expressional gestures. | Has low confidence to explain and deliver topic properly. Less eye contact and presentation gestures used. | Does not have confidence to explain and deliver topic properly. No eye contact and presentational gestures used. | |
| Use of Visual Aids | Aids prepared in professional manner. Font is large enough to be seen by all. Well organized. Main points stand out. | Aids contribute, but not all material supported by aids. Font size is appropriate for reading. | Aids are poorly prepared or used inappropriately. Font is too small. Too much information is included. | No aids are used, or they are so poorly prepared that they detract from the presentation. | |
| Responsiveness to Audience | Responds well to questions. Restates and summarizes when needed. | Generally responsive to questions. | Reluctantly interacts with audience. Responds poorly to questions. | Avoids audience interaction. Not responsive to group. | |
| Results | Data are presented in one or more tables, with accompanying text to introduce the tables. Figures are used to illustrate key comparisons or trends. No errors in calculations. | Data tables are presented, but some calculations may be in error, some data may be missing, or figures may be missing, or figures may be insufficient. | Insufficient data are presented, or several errors in calculations are presented and distract from the results. Text and/or figures may be missing. | Raw data are missing. Reported counts are calculated incorrectly. No text to present the results. No figures or alternative methods of data presentation. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Share Information | Relays a great deal of information - all relates to the topic. | Relays some basic information-most relates to the topic. | Relays very little information - some relates to the topic. | Does not relay any information to teammates. | |
| Fulfill Team Role’s Duties | Performs all duties of assigned team role. | Performs nearly all duties. | Performs very little duties. | Does not perform any duties of assigned team role. | |
| Share Equally | Always does the assigned work without having to be reminded. | Usually does the assigned work - often needs reminding. | Rarely does the assigned work - often needs reminding. | Always relies on others to do the work. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project Complexity | Project was innovative and challenging that required an effort that exceeds the normal expectations. | Project had good technical challenges that required innovative problem solving and engineering. | Project had acceptable scope that solves a technical problem and required some technical expertise in hardware and/or software. | Project had limited scope that required very little creative development or technical expertise. | |
| Problem Statement | Problem statement shows full understanding of the problem and clearly includes final design deliverables. | Problem statement shows some understanding of the problem and includes most of the final design deliverables. | Problem statements show little understanding of the problem and few design deliverables are included. | No problem statement and no design deliverables. | |
| Define Goals | The student justifies effectively the topic of interest, the focus area of interaction and an achievable and appropriately challenging goal. | The student describes clearly the topic of interest, the focus area of interaction and an achievable and appropriately challenging goal. | The student outlines superficially the topic of interest and goals. | The student does not identify the topic of interest and goals. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research and Collected Information | Collected a great deal of information - all relates to the topic. | Collected some basic information - most relates to the topic. | Collected very little information - some relates to the topic. | Did not collect any information that relates to the topic. | |
| Information Interpretation | Always interprets information from literature review correctly and precisely; always draws correct and useful conclusions. | Interprets information from literature review correctly most of the time; most of the conclusion are correct and useful. | Interprets information from literature review correctly occasionally; some conclusion are incorrect. | Interprets information from literature review incorrectly most of the time; many conclusions are incorrect. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design Process | Clear evidence of ability to understand the design requirements, limitations, analyze different alternatives, and provide a feasible design. | Some evidence of ability to understand the design requirements, limitations, analyze different alternatives, and provide a feasible design. | Little evidence of ability to understand the design requirements, limitations, analyze different alternatives, and provide a feasible design. | No evidence of ability to understand the design requirements, limitations, analyze different alternatives, and provide a feasible design. | |
| Procedure | Clear definition of solution, procedure and methods. Different alternatives are considered and evaluated. | Solution procedure and methods are not always clearly defined. Few alternative designs are evaluated. | Outlines a general procedure but does not clearly identify methods. | No procedure, tries things out unsystematically. | |
| Apply Information | The student demonstrates well-developed transfer and application of information to make decisions create solutions and develop understandings in connection with the project’s goal. | The student demonstrates satisfactory transfer and application of information to make decisions create solutions and develop understandings in connection with the project’s goal. | The student demonstrates minimal transfer and application of information to make decisions create solutions and develop understandings in connection with the project’s goal. | The student demonstrates no transfer and application of information to make decisions create solutions and develop understandings in connection with the project’s goal. | |
| Technical Knowledge Hardware / Software | Student not only applied knowledge from prerequisite courses but also applied additional technical knowledge gained through cooperation/work experience or through extra research. Project is completed without any external assistance and is working properly. | Student readily applied pre-requisite knowledge from math, science, and technical courses to the project and required little or no outside assistance to complete the project. | Student demonstrated an accept- able level of prerequisite knowledge in math, science and technical courses; however, the student did require some technical assistance from the instructor or others in order to complete the project. | Student clearly lacked the pre-requisite knowledge in math, science and technical courses (both hardware and software). The project was either not completed or was completed only with an unreasonable amount of outside assistance. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meetings and Discussions | Student has regularly visited project advisor every week for project discussion. | Student has occasionally visited project advisor for project discussion. | Student has rarely visited project advisor for project discussion. | Student has not visited the project advisor at all for project discussion. | |
| Organization | Very organized in his/her work during the course of the project. | Marginally organized his/her work during the course of the project. | Slightly organized his/her work during the course of the project. | Not organized at all, haphazard work carried out during the course of the project. | |
| Process | The student is self motivated, has a strong sense of perseverance and a confident balanced attitude towards the completion of the project. | The student is confident enough but has difficulty seeing goals. | Student has little confidence and has a hesitant attitude towards the completion of the project. | The student has a defeated attitude and is not aware of or unwilling to set goals for the completion of the project. | |
| Record and Compile | Student has compiled and kept a comprehensive log/record of all work carried out. | Student has compiled some log/record of the work carried out. | Student has incomplete log/record of the work carried out. | Student has no log/ record of the work carried out. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject Knowledge | Fully understands the project, including its purpose and results; able to discuss experimental protocols in a clear and precise manner. | Has very good understanding of the project, its purpose and results; able to discuss experimental protocols in a reasonably clear manner. | Has some understanding of the project, its purpose and results; almost able to discuss experimental protocols in a clear manner. | Has poor understanding of the project, its purpose and results; unable to discuss experimental protocols. | |
| Depth of Subject Knowledge | Demonstration of full knowledge of the subject with explanations and elaboration. | At ease with content and able to elaborate and explain to some degree. | Only basic concepts are demonstrated and interpreted. | No grasp of information. Clearly no knowledge of subject matter. No questions are answered. No interpretation made. | |
| Testing and Evaluation | Student developed a good systematic procedure for testing hardware and/or software that allowed for quick identification of technical problems. | Student demonstrated the ability to test hardware and/or software in order to identify technical problems, and was able to solve any problems with little or no assistance. | Student was able to identify the problems in hardware and/or software but required some assistance in fixing some of the problems. | Student demonstrated little or no ability to troubleshoot hardware and/or software for the project. | |
| Technical Knowledge Hardware / Software | Student not only applied knowledge from prerequisite courses but also applied additional technical knowledge gained through cooperation/work experience or through extra research. Project is completed without any external assistance and is working properly. | Student readily applied pre-requisite knowledge from math, science, and technical courses to the project and required little or no outside assistance to complete the project. | Student demonstrated an accept- able level of prerequisite knowledge in math, science and technical courses; however, the student did require some technical assistance from the instructor or others in order to complete the project. | Student clearly lacked the pre-requisite knowledge in math, science and technical courses (both hardware and software). The project was either not completed or was completed only with an unreasonable amount of outside assistance. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | Presentation is clear and logical. Listener can easily follow line of reasoning. | Presentation is generally clear. A few minor points may be confusing. | Listener can follow presentation with effort. Organization not well thought out. | Presentation is very confused and unclear. Listeners cannot follow it. | |
| Content: Depth | Design, methods, results, conclusions are clearly stated. Implications of results and “where do we go from here” discussed. | Description of project and results is generally clear. Some discussion of what results mean. | Some components of project description are minimal or missing. Little discussion of what results mean. | Description of project and results is very difficult to follow. No discussion of meaning of results. Listeners learn little. | |
| Use of Visual Aids | Aids prepared in professional manner. Font is large enough to be seen by all. Well organized. Main points stand out. | Aids contribute, but not all material supported by aids. Font size is appropriate for reading. | Aids are poorly prepared or used inappropriately. Font is too small. Too much information is included. | No aids are used, or they are so poorly prepared that they detract from the presentation. | |
| Responsiveness to Audience | Responds well to questions. Restates and summarizes when needed. | Generally responsive to questions. | Reluctantly interacts with audience. Responds poorly to questions. | Avoids audience interaction. Not responsive to group. | |
| Results | Data are presented in one or more tables, with accompanying text to introduce the tables. Figures are used to illustrate key comparisons or trends. No errors in calculations. | Data tables are presented, but some calculations may be in error, some data may be missing, or figures may be insufficient. | Insufficient data is presented, or several errors in calculations are present. Text and/or figures may be missing. | Data and calculations are missing. No text to present the results. No figures or alternative methods of data presentation. |
| Performance Indicator | Exemplary (5) | Satisfactory (4-3) | Developing (2-1) | Unsatisfactory | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Societal Effects | Serious consideration given to the effects the project will have on the society. | Due consideration given to the effects the projects will have on the society. | Little consideration given to the effects the project will have on the society. | No consideration given to the effects on the society. | |
| Environment and Sustainability | Serious consideration given to the effects the project will have on the environment. | Due consideration given to the effects the projects will have on the environment. | Little consideration given to the effects the project will have on the environment. | No consideration given to the effects on the environment. | |
| Project Applications | Project has wide applications which help in the betterment of society. | Project has substantial applications for the betterment of society. | Project has moderate applications for the betterment of society. | Project has no applications effecting the betterment of society. | |
| Technical Knowledge Hardware / Software | Student not only applied knowledge from prerequisite courses but also applied additional technical knowledge gained through cooperation/work experience or through extra research. Project is completed without any external assistance and is working properly. | Student readily applied pre-requisite knowledge from math, science, and technical courses to the project and required little or no outside assistance to complete the project. | Student demonstrated an accept- able level of prerequisite knowledge in math, science and technical courses; however, the student did require some technical assistance from the instructor or others in order to complete the project. | Student clearly lacked the pre-requisite knowledge in math, science and technical courses (both hardware and software). The project was either not completed or was completed only with an unreasonable amount of outside assistance. |