|
4 Points =
The student worked cooperatively as a functioning member of the
group, both giving and accepting contributions. The resulting designs from
the brainstorming are plausible and are based on scientific principles. The
design selected is appropriately modeled and functions well. The written
report presents a design defense that demonstrates a thorough understanding
of the scientific principles. It includes an analysis of the testing with
plausible recommendations for future modifications based on the result.
3 Points = The student worked cooperatively as a
functioning member of the group but gave and accepted only limited
contributions. The resulting designs indicate that the brainstorming
session was not overly productive, resulting in only a few sketches, not
always based on sound scientific principles. The design selected is fairly
well modeled, but barely functions. The written report presents a design
defense that demonstrates only a partial understanding of the scientific
principles. An analysis of the testing with plausible recommendations for
future modifications based on the result is included, but is not clearly
delineated.
2 Points = The student worked cooperatively as a
functioning member of the group but gave and accepted little contribution.
The resulting designs are minimal and indicate little conversation took
place during the brainstorming session. The design selected is poorly
constructed and barely functions. The written report shows little
understanding of scientific principles or of the design process. Little of
the analysis of the testing is convincing. One or two recommendations for
future modifications based on the result are included, but they are very
sketchy and poorly presented.
1 Point = The student did not work cooperatively as a functioning
member of the group, making no contribution to the group process. Little,
if any, scientific discussion took place during the brainstorming session.
Only one or two sketches are included, and they are poorly drawn. The model
is very poorly constructed and does not function. The written report shows
no understanding of scientific principles or of the design process. There
is no analysis of any testing and no recommendations are given for future
modifications based on the result.
|
