Quick Reference: Grading Scale
A
3.6-4.0
72-80 points
Exceptional work demonstrating mastery
B
2.6-3.5
52-70 points
Proficient work demonstrating solid understanding
C
1.6-2.5
32-50 points
Developing work demonstrating basic understanding
D
0.6-1.5
12-30 points
Beginning work demonstrating limited understanding
F
0-0.5
0-10 points
Insufficient work; does not meet minimum requirements
1. Engineering Notebook (16 points)
Exemplary (14.5-16)
Proficient (11-14)
Developing (8-10.5)
Beginning (0-7.5)
- Comprehensive problem analysis with detailed constraints
- Multiple design iterations with clear rationale
- Detailed pseudocode/flowcharts showing logical thinking
- Thorough testing log with 5+ iterations
- Insightful reflection demonstrating deep learning
- Professional presentation
- Clear problem analysis with main constraints
- Design sketches with some explanation
- Pseudocode/flowcharts mostly complete
- Testing log with 3-4 iterations
- Reflection addresses challenges and solutions
- Organized notebook
- Basic problem statement with few constraints
- Simple design sketches, minimal explanation
- Incomplete pseudocode/flowcharts
- Testing log with 1-2 iterations
- Brief reflection with limited insight
- Disorganized or incomplete sections
- Minimal or no problem analysis
- Missing or inadequate design documentation
- No pseudocode/flowcharts
- Little to no testing documentation
- Superficial or missing reflection
- Incomplete notebook
2. Programming - Code Quality (20 points)
Exemplary (18-20)
Proficient (14-17.5)
Developing (10-13.5)
Beginning (0-9.5)
- Clear header with all required info
- Extensive meaningful comments
- Excellent use of variables with descriptive names
- Complex conditional statements used appropriately
- Advanced logic operators (AND, OR, NOT) implemented correctly
- Efficient algorithms with optimized patterns
- Well-organized structure
- No unnecessary repetition
- Code header present
- Good commenting on major sections
- Variables used appropriately
- Conditional statements implemented correctly
- Logic operators used correctly in most cases
- Functional algorithms
- Organized code with minor inefficiencies
- Some code repetition
- Basic code header
- Some comments present but sparse
- Variables used, naming could improve
- Basic conditional statements, some errors
- Logic operators attempted but may have errors
- Simple algorithms that work but inefficiently
- Code structure needs improvement
- Noticeable repetition
- Missing or incomplete header
- Few or no comments
- Poor or no use of variables
- Missing or incorrect conditionals
- Logic operators not used or incorrect
- Inadequate algorithms
- Disorganized code
- Major inefficiencies
3. Programming - Functionality (24 points)
Mission Completion Breakdown:
2 pts
Start Sequence (bumper press)
2 pts
Navigate to Collection Area
2 pts
Locate RED Cube
2 pts
Collect RED Cube
3 pts
Place RED Cube (correct location)
2 pts
Locate GREEN Cube
2 pts
Collect GREEN Cube
3 pts
Place GREEN Cube (correct location)
2 pts
Locate BLUE Cube
2 pts
Collect BLUE Cube
3 pts
Place BLUE Cube (correct location)
2 pts
Navigate to End Zone
2 pts
Finish Sequence (back in, stop, indicate)
🌟 BONUS (up to +5 points)
- Complete in under 3 min: +2
- Error recovery: +2
- Efficient pathfinding: +1
⚠️ DEDUCTIONS
- Human intervention required: -5 pts
4. Demonstration Video (12 points)
Exemplary (11-12)
Proficient (9-10.5)
Developing (6.5-8.5)
Beginning (0-6)
- Clear, professional quality video
- Comprehensive robot design explanation
- Detailed code walkthrough (variables, conditionals, logic operators, algorithms)
- Complete successful run shown
- Articulate verbal explanation
- Appropriate length (2-3 min)
- Demonstrates deep understanding
- Good video quality
- Clear robot design explanation
- Code walkthrough covers main concepts
- Successful run or good attempt
- Clear explanation of outcomes
- Mostly appropriate length
- Demonstrates solid understanding
- Adequate video quality
- Basic robot design explanation
- Code walkthrough missing some concepts
- Partial run shown or unclear explanation
- Brief explanation
- Length too short or slightly long
- Demonstrates basic understanding
- Poor video quality
- Minimal or unclear explanation
- Inadequate code walkthrough
- No run or very incomplete
- Little explanation
- Length significantly off
- Limited understanding
5. Collaboration & Professionalism (8 points)
Exemplary (7-8)
Proficient (5.5-6.5)
Developing (4-5)
Beginning (0-3.5)
For Team Projects:
- Equal contribution from both members
- Effective communication and task distribution
- Respectful collaboration and conflict resolution
- Both members understand all aspects of project
Outstanding collaboration/professionalism, exemplary teamwork
For Team Projects:
- Equal contribution from both members
- Effective communication and task distribution
- Respectful collaboration and conflict resolution
- Both members understand all aspects of project
Good collaboration/professionalism, effective teamwork
For Team Projects:
- Mostly equal contribution
- Some communication challenges
- Basic collaboration
- Some knowledge gaps between members
Adequate collaboration/professionalism, some issues
For Team Projects:
- Unequal contribution
- Poor communication
- Conflicts not resolved
- Significant knowledge gaps
Poor collaboration/professionalism, significant problems
Student Score Sheet
Criteria
Points Possible
Points Earned
1. Engineering Notebook
16
2. Programming - Code Quality
20
3. Programming - Functionality
24
4. Demonstration Video
12
5. Collaboration & Professionalism
8
TOTAL
80
Final Grade Calculation:
Total Points: _____ / 80
Final Grade (0-4 scale): _____ ÷ 20 = _____
Letter Grade: _____