Testing/Grading
Testing/Grading
Testing/Grading
Students will be graded on functionality, complexity, and completion/achievability of milestones. Students will also be graded on a technical report that they produce by the end of the project.
Grading Rubric for the Chameleon Tongue Performance
|
Grade |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
Deliverables |
All deliverables were completed on time with organized documentation and execution. |
Most deliverables were met with minor delays or revisions. |
Some deliverables were met with noticeable delays or incomplete tasks. |
Few deliverables met; significant gaps in progress. |
No deliverables were met, general lack of effort and engagement with the project. |
|
Functionality |
The prototype actuates reliably/repeatability and consistently as intended. |
Actuation works most of the time with minor inconsistencies. |
Actuation is inconsistent requiring troubleshooting. |
Actuation barely works or only works under limited conditions. |
Prototype does not actuate. |
|
Complexity |
Uses 4 or more different embedded peripherals that were states in education objectives. |
Uses 3 peripherals; integration is mostly effective. |
Uses 2 peripherals; some integration issues of basic usage. |
Uses 1 peripheral; minimal application of embedded systems. |
No peripherals used of irrelevant to task; the circuit lacks embedded system principles. |
Grading Rubric for Technical Report
|
Grade |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
Requirements |
Fully meets all specified requirements; addresses all key objectives with clear and well-structures content |
Meets most requirements but may lack minor details or slight deviations from the instructions. |
Addresses some requirements but omits key parts or lacks clarity. |
Major components missing or incomplete; weak structure. |
Does not meet the given requirements; lacks clarity and coherence. |
|
Spelling/Grammar |
Free from spelling and grammatical errors; polished and professional. |
Few minors errors that do not affect readability. |
Noticeable errors that affect readability and professionalism. |
Frequent errors that impact comprehension. |
Numerous errors that make the report difficult to understand. |
|
Technicality |
Strong grasp of technical concepts; clear, precise, and well-supported explanations. |
Good understanding with minor lack of depth or precision. |
Limited use of technical terminology; some explanations are unclear. |
Weak understanding; explanations are vague or incorrect. |
Lacks technical knowledge; explanations are overly simplistic or wrong. |
Requirements for the Technical Report (can be changed to an instructor's liking)
- Title Page
- Abstract
- Summary
- Table of Contents
- Overview of the final design for the circuit
- Overview of the final design for the party blower
- Prototypes
- Testing and Results
- Assessment
- Conclusion