Robot Design RUBRIC

Needs Improvement
Design, drive train, and structure are standard. Manipulators/sensors used in expected ways, if used.

Innovative Design

Locomotion & Navigation

Prog., cont.

Programming.

Kids Did the Work

Structural

Overall Design

COACHES' HANDBOOK: Appendix A

Strategy, Process, Problem-Solving

90

Fair
Design creative, unique use of drive train or structure. Manipulators/sensors used in unexpected ways, if used. Unique/creative strategy for coordinating missions. Manipulators/sensors used in unexpected ways, if used. Design creative, unique use of drive train or structure. Manipulators/sensors used in unexpected ways, if used.

Good

Excellent
Design creative, unique use of drive train or structure.

Strategy for combining missions expected. Programming written as expected.

1 of the 4 above is demonstrated.) are demonstrated.)

Unique/creative strategy for coordinating missions. Unique/creative strategy for coordinating Programming tasks used in unexpected ways. missions. (For this category, 1 done exceptionally or 3 of 4 above demonstrated.) Programming tasks used in unexpected Programming tasks used in ways. (For this category, 2 of the 4 above unexpected ways. (For this category,
Some forethought in initial design. Refinement of robot and programs not communicated. Strategy often based on ease of task - few risks taken.

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

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

Communicates complete design process, from initial concept through build, test, and refinement. Excellent/innovative strategy, combining mission tasks, plotting routes, maximizing points.

Strategy based only on ease of task - did not maximize time, combine mission tasks or consider points. combinations or maximizing points. Difficulty going same distance Goes defined distances on repeated missions. sometimes. Too fast for accuracy, or too Turns sometimes accurate. slow to accomplish mission. Turns inaccurate or inconsistent. Moves between two points inconsistently. No effort to know position on table beyond distance and accurate turns.

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

Goes defined distances most of time. Goes defined distances efficiently. Not too fast for accuracy or too slow Adjusts speed, position sensing for optimum to accomplish mission. speed and accuracy. Turns reasonably accurate and consistent. Turns accurately and consistently. Allows for variables. Allows for variables (battery wear, obstacles). Moves between two points with Moves between two points with very good reasonable accuracy and consistency. accuracy and consistency. May use various sensors. May use various sensors.

Sometimes moves between two points consistently.

FIRST LEGO LEAGUE Little or no effort to know position on table beyond distance and accurate turns.
Programs disorganized Programs inefficient

Programs somewhat organized Programs efficient at completing some tasks

Programs organized. Programs efficient at completing most tasks.

Programs logically organized. Programs very efficient.

Results unpredictable Sensors inadequately used Programs do not accomplish expected tasks Variables, loops, subroutines and conditions defined but unused Children cant describe what run will do. Little knowledge of why some parts are located as they are on the robot. Little or no understanding of what pieces did. Building/programming appears primarily done by coach.

Results somewhat unpredictable Programs do some of what is expected Variables, loops, subroutines and conditions, if used, not understood.

Programs do what theyre expected to do. Programs always work, even for complex tasks. Sensors used effectively, if used. Variables, loops, subroutines and conditions, if used, are needed. Kids can describe most of mission.
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.

FIRST LEGO LEAGUE

COACHES' HANDBOOK: Appendix A

Knowledge of robot structure and programming shows minimal understanding of underlying design, science, and technology (age specific expectations).

Knowledge of robot structure and Knowledge of robot structure and programming shows moderate programming shows thorough understanding understanding of underlying design, of underlying design, science, and technology science, and technology (age specific (age specific expectations). expectations). Building/programming was done by team Building and programming seems Building/programming mostly directed by members. team members, with help from coach. primarily directed by coach.

Okay for team members to have different roles, as long as work is done by children.
Difficulty with robot assembly during demo. Base weak, falls apart when handled or run.

Robot assembly done with few errors. Slow robot assembly, with no errors. Robot base structure has some stability. Attachments, if used, difficult to apply; and/or not modular; not precise or not repeatable.
Attachments, if used, weak and fall apart often; difficulty completing task; or overly complex. Robot design from book, little modification by team. Robot lacks most critical design components: works, stays together, efficient parts use, attachments easy to add/remove, simpler than comparable robots.

Robot assembles easily. Robot base stable, but not robust. Attachments, if used, modular; function most of the time; and/or take some time to assemble; somewhat precise and/or repeatable. Robot shows signs of teams design ideas. Robot lacks many critical design components: works, stays together, efficient parts use, attachments easy to add/remove, simpler than comparable robots. Robot designed by team. 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, perform tasks extremely well and are repeatable. Robot designed by team; design is unique and creative.

91

Few components work together; few components look like they belong together.

Robot lacks some critical design components: works, stays together, Robot is elegant, complete system. efficient parts use, attachments easy to add/remove, simpler than comparable All components work well together. robots. All components look like they belong together. Most components work together; most Some components work together; components look like they belong together. some components look like they belong together.

project RUBRIC
Needs Improvement

Question, Language Use

Completeness, Teamwork

Background, Data & Graphics

Analysis & Conclusions

Style

92

Fair Research question is vague Organization elements are present, but weak logical flow Presentation outline is clearly evident Main point is clear Goals are articulated Group effort is seamless Arguments are not clear Goal is not clear Team member ideas not well-integrated Research question is fairly clear and concise, but could use a little tweaking Question is stated directly and clearly explained

Good

Excellent

No clearly-defined question Presentation rambles Lack of coherent arguments Lack of goal Team member ideas not integrated

Organizedclear beginning, middle and end with logical thought progression and elements are relevant and well-integrated Persuasive arguments and examples Goal is clear and well integrated Collaboration of group effort is seamless

COACHES' HANDBOOK: Appendix A

One team member doing all the work

All team members participating This project is clearly the work of the children and all students able to answer judges questions Evidence is clearly supported Original supporting data carefully documented in all aspects of assignment Spoke to science professionals and shared ideas with others Team provides judges with a full understanding of technical terms

FIRST LEGO LEAGUE

Less than team doing work team doing the work Adult intervention is able to answer judges Excessive adult apparent and/or team questions intervention (help from able to answer judges Evidence is presented mentor/coach) and/or questions unable to answer All aspects of assignment Insufficient and/or judges questions fully carried out misinterpreted data No supporting data Spoke to science Elements of assignment Most aspects of professionals or shared assignment carried out missing ideas with others Attempted to reach out to Did not reach out to Good use of technical terms science professionals or science professionals
share ideas with others No clear arguments

Arguments obscured by jargon

Several good sources Credit is given to others when due

Wide variety of sources cited Credit given clearly when due

No outside sources (books, websites, magazines, etc) used No mention of sources No visual aids Supported printed materials not provided

Very limited outside sources/ only one source or type of source cited Credit to sources not given Ineffective use of visual aids Supporting printed materials provided to judge(s)

Visual aids support research question Supporting printed materials provided to judge(s) and referenced

Carefully chosen visual aids clearly support research question Relevant supporting printed material given to judge(s) and incorporated during presentation

FIRST LEGO LEAGUE

Presentation has no link to research question No relevance to FLL theme Alternate views ignored Lacking personal reflection Analysis not relatable to research question Lacks stance on findings Many errors Too long/short Not rehearsed Plagued with technical difficulties No thought put into presentation format

Link to research question is vague Relevance is unclear Alternate views dismissed Conclusions are vague and unsupported Analysis has little relation to research question Insights and findings not shared Few errors Slightly too long/short Semi-rehearsed Several technical difficulties Presentation seems rushed or unrefined

Link to research question is clear Presentation thoroughly links to research questions Relevance to FLL theme is Relevance to FLL theme is clearly stated implied Awareness of differing views and implications considererd Conclusions are inferred Analysis ties to research question Alternative views considered with wellsupported position on issues Conclusions are clearly supported by data Analysis clearly relates well to research question Students take firm, articulate stand Original, important insights are shared Very few evident errors Proper length Well-rehearsed Very minor tech difficulties Well-edited Students are having fun with delivery 93 Lacks excitement Information presented with limited flair Presentation is seamless Team prepared and on-time Very well rehearsedmodel of clarity & good speaking No technical difficulties Very well polished and easy to follow A joy for the audiencehumor, personal touches, and clever presentation style
COACHES' HANDBOOK: Appendix A

TEAMWORK AND FLL VALUES RUBRIC

Needs Improvement

Roles & Responsibilities

Gracious Professionalism

Problem-Solving & Team Dynamics

FLL Values

COACHES' HANDBOOK: Appendix A

Confidence & Enthusiasm

94

Fair Loose role assignments Uneven work distribution Team members will help each other, if asked Time management skills are weak other without being asked Defined roles Clearly defined roles

Good

Excellent

No clearly-defined roles Not clear who completed which tasks and/or very uneven distribution of work Team members not collaborative Time management is poor or purely directed by the coach

Work is distributed fairly- but Workload is distributed fairly and with indivdual focus only team members understand each others roles Team members assist each Team members fill each others roles Team mentions learning time (happily!), if needed management Team members give concrete examples of learning time management

COACHES' HANDBOOK: Appendix A

Team members show little/no respect for each other Team members show Team members show no awareness of school/ limited awareness of community issues Team members compete with each other to be heard during judging Team doesnt understand the concept of gracious professionalism

Team members show limited respect for each other

Team members show respect for teammates Team members imply increased awareness of school and/or community

Team members give concrete examples of respect for teammates Team members show increased awareness of their school/community including concrete examples

school / community issues

FIRST LEGO LEAGUE

Team is aware of gracious professionalism, but gives no concrete examples of what they have done to help others Team did not help each other/other teams

Team members clearly discuss how Team members are vague this increased awareness translates about how this awareness into other areas of their lives translates into other aspects of their lives Team members give concrete examples of how they have helped Team implies that they have each other/others helped each other/other teams

A problem was identified, but no steps were taken to identify a solution

A problem was identified, but the chosen solution was inadequate to some team members

FIRST LEGO LEAGUE

One team member used Some team members power to reach their didnt accept the solution desired outcome One persons ideas are used Team members working against each other Coercion and/or confrontation dominate Only one team member spoke to the judge(s) Some team members seem disinterested Most team members are disengaged

A problem was identified and A problem was identified and the team there is compromise evident worked together to find a solution in the solution Various solutions were tested and then incorporated Team tested various solutions to solve the Team accepts input from all and sees problem the big picture in their overall goals Simple majority had input at meetings Decisions made by simple majority without collaborative discussion Team coexists peacefully About the team spoke to the judge(s) About the team seems interested Members are not paying attention to one another Cooperation is a dominant theme Decisions made by most of the team, however focuses on individual tasks Team collaborates well Team members show equality and value each others roles by decisions being made by the entire team Collaboration and co-ownership are dominant themes with the members recognizing interdependence All team members speak to the Everyone was ready to answer at least one question judges showing confidence in themselves as well as the team from the judge(s) Team members show equal Most of the team appears investment in FLL excited and interested Members are enthusiastic, but talk over one another Members enthusiastically work together to include each other

No clear enthusiasm for science, engineering or technology Team doesnt mention new skills acquired 95

Some members show an interest in science, engineering or technology Limited attention paid to new skills acquired

Team shows a keen interest in subject matter, but limited use of concrete examples Team implies new skills acquired

Group articulates a clear understanding of the FLL experience Team gives concrete examples of new skills acquired and their interest in the subject areas