Rubrics

Developing

Satisfactory

Proficient

Excellence

Electrical

Team did not submit on time. Little to no original pictures, video, CAD renderings, schematics, sketches, or work. Elements of others’ work without proper accreditation (e.g., non-referenced previous team’s work).

Documentation provides basic details of electrical design. Includes some original visual artifacts. May have minor attribution issues or lack clarity.

Documentation provides sufficient detail for a technical reader to replicate the design process. Includes original visual artifacts (e.g., wiring diagrams, schematics, photos). Design appears student-created.

Meets all Proficient criteria AND evaluates use of resources (e.g., budget, tools, components). Includes data-driven reasoning for design decisions. Reflects on failures and improvements. Demonstrates growth in electrical knowledge.

Mechanical

Documentation lacks a clear design process or visuals. Contains minimal mechanical diagrams or construction steps. May include reused content without context or credits.

Includes basic steps of mechanical construction. Shows some original work (e.g., CAD, prototypes). Describes how components were built or assembled.

Clearly describes mechanical strategy and design iterations. Visuals support the narrative (e.g., annotated CAD, exploded views). Includes testing data or notes on how design was evaluated.

Meets all Proficient criteria AND explains design trade-offs and constraints (e.g., weight, materials, mobility). Includes revisions based on performance. Demonstrates a cohesive mechanical strategy tied to the robot’s goals.

Software

Software documentation is missing or unclear. Code snippets are unoriginal, unexplained, or lack context. No evidence of debugging or iteration.

Some code is explained with comments or screenshots. Includes a basic overview of programming languages, libraries, or platforms used.

Provides meaningful insight into code structure and function. Describes algorithmic logic and control schemes. Includes some discussion of testing and refinement.

Meets all Proficient criteria AND includes version control usage, flowcharts, or pseudocode. Reflects on debugging, testing processes, and how code evolved. Demonstrates thoughtful programming choices tied to performance.

Presentation

Disorganized or incomplete documentation. Poor formatting and navigation. No table of contents or labeling of sections.

Document is readable and has a basic structure. Sections are labeled, but may lack clarity or polish. May be missing timestamps or team member attributions.

Well-organized and easy to navigate. Sections are clearly labeled and include context (e.g., team roles, dates). Shows collaboration across sub-teams.

Meets all Proficient criteria AND includes a clear narrative of the team’s journey. Demonstrates thoughtful storytelling, aesthetics, and professionalism. References all sources and includes team reflections.

Rubrics

Developing

Satisfactory

Proficient

Excellence

Teamwork & Communication

Team was disorganized, one or more members disengaged or dominating. Poor communication or conflict was evident.

Team showed some coordination, but communication was inconsistent or relied heavily on one person.

Team worked together with clear roles. All members contributed meaningfully to the task.

Team showed seamless collaboration. Members supported each other and communicated effectively throughout.

Technical Understanding

Team struggled to explain or apply their design. Robot could not complete the task or had minimal function.

Team completed the task but with unclear or limited understanding of how their robot functioned.

Team demonstrated a solid understanding of their design. Task was completed or attempted with logical reasoning and explanation.

Team showed strong technical fluency and problem-solving. Explanation and execution were clear, creative, and insightful.

Task Execution & Problem Solving

Task was attempted with basic or partial functionality. Errors were not clearly diagnosed.

Task was completed or close to completion. Team adapted to challenges and explained decisions well.

Task was completed efficiently with innovative approaches. Team handled problems with confidence and clear strategy.

Task was completed efficiently with innovative approaches. Team handled problems with confidence and clear strategy.

Rubrics

Developing

Satisfactory

Proficient

Excellence

Sportsmanship

Disrespectful behavior continued after warnings. Team missed over half of matches or key challenges. No participation in SuperTeam or technical challenges. Team lacked defined roles. Relied On adults. Little evidence of student ownership. Significantly negatively impacted other teams’ experience at the competition.

Team was occasionally uncooperative or late. Missed some matches or challenges. Behavior improved after reminders. Some student leadership evident, but roles unclear or inconsistent. Sometimes difficult situations were escalated but ended up resolving them fairly.

Team was consistently respectful and on time. Participated fully in matches, SuperTeam, and technical challenges. Contributed to a positive environment. Clear student-led roles and decision-making. Team showed independence and problem-solving. Handled difficult situations calmly and fairly when they arose.

All Proficient criteria plus: Team actively supported others (e.g., shared tools, cheered opponents, helped peers). Set an outstanding example of collaboration and kindness. All Proficient criteria plus: Students mentored peers, resolved issues constructively, and empowered all voices. Exhibited initiative and ownership. Prevented difficult situations from escalating early and behaved sportsmanlike at all times.

Rubrics

Developing

Satisfactory

Proficient

Excellence

All criteria of “Satisfactory” also met or exceeded.

All criteria of “Satisfactory” and “Proficient” also met or exceeded.

TDP

TDP was not filled, not nearly complete or not filled with any meaningful information.

TDP was filled with all required information. No or little care was taken to present information so it is easy to understand.

TDP was filled with all available information and presented in a helpful and easy to understand way.

TDP was filled with all available info, presented well, supplemented with sources and links to more helpful material and easy to understand.

Poster, Presentation & Interview

Poster was not created, poster session not attended or information was not shared during the interview.

A poster was created but lacked a lot of information poster session was attended, information was shared on request in the interview.

An informative poster was created and questions answered well during the poster session. Design highlights shown at interview on own initiative.

Poster was informative, detailed, well presented Design highlights shown in interview on own initiative. Both in a way that helps others replicate and build on their success.

Open Source and published materials

Nothing was shared publicly. Note: This alone will not result in a “developing” - although we expect things that can be of use to the community to be shared in the academic spirit.

Nothing except the poster and TDP were shared publicly.

At least one or two of Testing data, design drawings or -files, code, explanations or sources for materials were shared publicly for other teams to benefit from.

Everything needed for others to learn from the team’s design published (see “Proficient” for examples), contact details for questions available (Forum or Discord name(s) encouraged).