Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 27

Multidisciplinary Capstone Design

(APS490Y)

Course Guide
2015 / 2016

REVISION 0.9 LAST EDITED 2015-09-09

APS490Y MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2014 / 2015

Instructional Team
Course Coordinator
Kamran Behdinan designchair@mie.utoronto.ca
Prof. Behdinan is the NSERC Design Chair in Multidisciplinary Engineering Design, and the
founding Director of the Institute for Multidisciplinary Design and Innovation.
As Course Coordinator, Prof. Behdinan oversees all aspects of the MCP and is responsible for
ensuring successful and equitable experiences for all MCP Clients, Students, and Supervisors.

Engineering Design Programs Assistant


Donna Liu donna@mie.utoronto.ca
The Engineering Design Programs Assistant supports the Course Coordinator and is the
primary point of contact for administrative questions relating to the MCP. Students who are
unable to reach their Supervisor or Client, or who have questions that relate to administrative
issues such as registration, availability of grades, reimbursements, etc., should contact the
Assistant.

Departmental and Divisional Representatives


Each partner Department has nominated one or more faculty members to serve as representatives
to the MCP. These representatives are responsible for evaluating whether a Client project is
appropriate for their discipline, and whether a student is appropriate for the MCP. Selected
Faculty groups have also partnered with the MCP to provide subject matter expertise.
Phil Anderson (ECE)

Goldie Nejat (MEC/IRM)

Jim Davis (UTIAS & EngSci)

Graeme Norval (CHE)

Rodrigo Fernandez-Gonzalez (IBBME)

Daman Panesar (CIV)

Jason Foster (EngSci)

Khoman Phang (ECE)

Greg Jamieson (IND)

Chandra Singh (MSE)

Don Kirk (CHE)

Deborah Tihanyi (ECP)

Yuri A. Lawryshyn (CHE)

INSTRUCTIONAL TEAM

An experience in multi-disciplinary engineering practice through a significant, openended, client-driven design project in which student teams address stakeholder needs
through the use of a creative and iterative design process.
2015/16 Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering Academic Calendar

Course Overview
The MCP is a unique capstone design course within the Faculty of Applied Science and
Engineering (FASE). All of the projects in the MCP have an industry Client for whom the project
represents a real business need. All of the projects are also explicitly multidisciplinary in nature
successfully completing the project will require skills and knowledge from across multiple
engineering disciplines.
The MCP is intended for exceptional students who are looking for a challenging capstone design
experience. Students who would like to work on an MCP project must apply to the Course
Coordinator, with admission to the course based on demonstrated skills, knowledge, and
experience as an engineering designer within their discipline.
Each MCP project has an associated Supervisor who will work with one or more student Teams.
The Supervisor is the primary point of contact for both the Client and the Teams, and is
responsible for ensuring that both the Clients and the MCPs desired outcomes materialize.
Supervisors are selected from among the pool of FASE design instructors.

Relationship to Other Capstone Design Courses


The MCP provides a capstone design experience, as defined by the Canadian Engineering
Accreditation Board (CEAB) that is compatible with:
CHE430Y1
MIE491Y1
ESC471H1
CIV498H1
ECE496Y1
ESC472H1
MIE490Y1
ESC470H1
MSE498Y1
Students who are accepted into the MCP are excluded from taking their programs regular
capstone design course.

What Makes the MCP Unique?

The opportunity to work with students from other disciplines


Projects that have been selected for their complexity, multidisciplinary nature, and the value
of the outcome to the Client
Committed and significant resources provided by the NSERC Design Chair and the FASE

COURSE OVERVIEW

Learning Objectives
Having completed the MCP, each student will have demonstrated the ability to:
Reconcile conflicting perspectives, approaches, and interpretations in all aspects of an
engineering design project;
Plan and execute a complete engineering design project, including framing, divergence,
convergence, and transitioning to a further level of refinement;
Appropriately and correctly apply the engineering tools and principles learned in their
courses, and through self-study, to an engineering design problem;
Contribute to the performance of an engineering design team;
Professionally communicate their design activities to different audiences using a variety of
appropriate media;
Comport and present themselves in a manner compatible with professional engineering;
Accurately assess gaps in their skills and knowledge, and successfully engage in self-study to
fill those gaps; and,
Work independently, possibly over an extended period of time.
Depending on the specific nature of their project, students in the MCP may also have
demonstrated the ability to:
Assess, and design to mitigate or enhance, the potential impact(s) of their design on (e.g.) the
environment, society, the law, etc.;
Assess, and design to mitigate or enhance, the potential ethical and equity impact(s) of their
design practice and solutions; or,
Appropriately incorporate economic factors into their design practice and solutions.
Students may develop, in collaboration with their project supervisor and under the guidance of
the Course Coordinator, additional learning objectives or more detailed sub-objectives during the
course.

CEAB Graduate Attributes


The CEAB Graduate Attributes (GAs) assessed in the MCP are compatible with those assessed in
the related Capstone Design courses. The following GAs will be assessed for all MCP projects:
A knowledge base for engineering (GA 3.1.1)
Design (GA 3.1.4)
Use of engineering tools (GA 3.1.5)
Individual and team work (GA 3.1.6)
Communication skills (GA 3.1.7)
Professionalism (GA 3.1.8)
Life-long learning (GA 3.1.12)
Depending on the specifics of the project, one or more the following additional GAs may be
assessed with the approval of the Course Coordinator and Supervisor:
Impact of engineering on society and the environment (GA 3.1.9)
Ethics and equity (GA 3.1.10)
Economics and project management (GA 3.11)
Student, Supervisors, and Clients are encouraged to consult the CEAB Accreditation Criteria
and Procedures documents, available online, for further details on these GAs.

COURSE OVERVIEW

Course Details
Participants
Participant

Role

Course Coordinator

Ensure a successful and equitable course experience.

Course Assistant

Primary point of contact for course administrative issues.

Departmental Representative

Liaise between the MCP and their department.

Client

Initiate and support one or more design projects.

Supervisor

Primary point of contact for one or more design projects.

Students

Contribute to a successful design project.

Teams
Students will work on a single project in a Team comprising three to five members.
In the event of team dysfunction students are expected to follow the processes defined in
APS111/APS112 in collaboration with their Supervisor and the Course Coordinator.

Policies
The MCP course follows applicable University of Toronto and Faculty of Applied Science and
Engineering Policies including:
Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters
Code of Student Conduct
Academic Integrity (Student Rights & Responsibilities Series)
Petitions and Appeals
University of Toronto Policy on Official Correspondence with Students
Inventions Policy
Note that, as per the Policy on Official Correspondence with Students, all MCP
communications will take place using either the University of Toronto Blackboard learning
system or an official University of Toronto email address. Also as per this policy, students are
expected to communicate with their Supervisor and Client using an official University of Toronto
email address.
Intellectual Property and Nondisclosure
Students are required to comply with any agreements made between the MCP and the Client
regarding intellectual property and nondisclosure. For projects where no agreements have been
made, Students must comply with the applicable University of Toronto policies.
Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that the Students under their supervision adhere to the
relevant agreements and policies. They are also bound by the agreements entered into by the
Course Coordination and by Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering and University of
Toronto policies.

COURSE DETAILS

Timeline
The MCP course is scheduled as a Y course that run in both the fall and spring semesters.
Practically the course runs year-round, with Clients submitting projects early in the year and
Students submitting their applications at the end of the spring semester.
Exact scheduling for the Workshops will be announced one to two weeks before the Workshops
take place.
Deliverables must be submitted by Friday at 1700 in the indicated weeks. Supervisors may
require submission earlier in the week.
Date

Activity or Deliverable

March 01

Statements of Need (SONs) due from Clients

April 01

Statements of Intent (SOIs) due from Students

FALL SEMESTER

FOCUS ON FRAMING AND CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

Sept. 10

Kickoff Meeting with Students, Supervisors and Clients

Week of Sept. 14

Workshop 1 Multidisciplinary Teamwork

Week of Sept. 21

Workshop 2 Engineering Design I

Week of Sept 28

Workshop 3 Engineering Management and Communication

Week of Oct. 26

Project Requirements delivered by Teams


TELS Survey 1

Week of Nov. 02

Project Requirement feedback returned by Supervisors

Week of Nov. 30

Design Proposal delivered by Teams

Week of Dec. 14

Design Proposal feedback returned by Supervisors

SPRING SEMESTER

FOCUS ON CONCEPT REFINEMENT AND DETAILED DESIGN

Week of Jan. 04

Workshop 4 The Design Portfolio

Week of Jan. 11

Workshop 5 Engineering Design II

Week of Feb. 01

Design Review and Critique presented and


defended by Teams
TELS Survey 2

Week of Feb. 08

Design Review and Critique feedback returned by Supervisors

Week of Feb. 15

Workshop 6 Supervisory Feedback and Expectations

Week of Mar. 14

Final Report and Deliverables due from Teams

Week of Mar. 21

Design Showcase delivered by Teams

Week of Apr. 04

Design Portfolio due from Students

Dates in bold are fixed based on the University of Toronto academic schedule and regulations.
The remaining dates are subject to Supervisor and Client availability.

COURSE DETAILS

Ongoing Meetings
Teams are strongly encouraged to meet with their Supervisor a minimum of once every two
weeks throughout the course. A tentative meeting schedule should be established at the Kickoff
and Feedback Meetings.
If Teams need to schedule ad-hoc meetings (e.g. with their Supervisor or Client) they should
provide the participants with at least two business days notice.

Assessment and Deliverables


Assessment and evaluation in the MCP has the objectives of being:
fair to Students, given the wide variety MCP projects and Client expectations
flexible to Students and Supervisors, given the wide variety of MCP projects
comprehensive and rigorous, to ensure that Clients receive quality deliverables
Deliverables are evaluated by the project Supervisor based on both their assessment and
assessment provided by the project Client. Supervisors may request that their Teams and Students
include a self-assessment with their deliverables.
Supervisors submit their evaluations to the Course Coordinator who is responsible for ensuring
fairness across the different projects.
Deliverables and Weighting
Deliverable

Weight

From

To

Statement of Need

N/A

Client

Course Coordinator

Statement of Intent

N/A

Student

Departmental Representative

Project Requirements

Team

Supervisor

Design Proposal

Team

Supervisor, and Client1

Team

Supervisor and Client1

Team

Supervisor and Client1

15%

Team

Supervisor and Client1

20%

Student

Supervisor

Design Critique

65%

Final Report and Deliverables


Design Showcase
Includes the Single Page Description

Design Portfolio

Short summaries of the deliverables can be found starting on page 8.

The Client may request a copy of the deliverable as submitted to the Supervisor. Alternatively
the Client may request a tailored deliverable. In either case the Supervisor may require that
Teams revise a deliverable, prior to sending it to the Client, to ensure quality. The Supervisor is
also responsible for ensuring that the Client is aware that any deliverable is not the work of
trained design engineers.
COURSE DETAILS

Flexible Deliverable Weights


Because of the wide variety of MCP projects and Client expectations, some Teams may need to
focus on the framing elements of the project (e.g. Project Requirements and Design Proposal)
while others may focus on the implementation elements (e.g. the Design Critique and Final
Report and Deliverables). Each Team is nonetheless expected to undertake all of the stages of a
nominal engineering design project.
During the Fall term, the Team, Supervisor, and Client are expected to negotiate weights for each
of the framing and implementation deliverables that are appropriate for the specific project.
These weights are subject to minimums and maximums specific in the table below. This table
also provides nominal weights that represent a typical breakdown.
Nominal
Weight

Max
Weight

10%

15%

30%

5%

10%

30%

Design Critique

10%

15%

30%

Final Report and Deliverables

15%

25%

30%

Deliverable

Min
Weight

Framing Deliverables
Project Requirements
Design Proposal
Implementation Deliverables

The Team must submit the agreed up weights to their Supervisor as part of the Project
Requirements deliverable and must commit to those weights. In the event that weights are not
submitted, the Supervisor will assign the nominal weights.
Team Grades
By default all Team members receive an identical grade on Team deliverables.
There are many ways that a Supervisor can gather information on individual contributions in
order to determine whether differentiated grades are needed. Some of the mechanisms that have
been used for this purpose in other design courses include:
Having students keep a Design Notebook in which they record their individual activities. The
Supervisor would review the Notebooks prior to assigning final grades. (Used in AER201)
Requiring that the students include an Attribution Table with each deliverable submission
that records (e.g.) which students were responsible for the different sections of the
deliverable. (Used in ESP)
Assigning each student responsibility for different sections of the deliverables as part of
project planning. (Used in CHE430)
Having students complete a survey in which they indicate their and their team mates
contributions to the different deliverables.
Supervisors and Students should discuss and agree on a mutually acceptable mechanism for
tracking contributions early in the course.
Should a Supervisor adjust the distribution of grades on one or more deliverables they should
provide the Course Coordinator with the rationale for and supporting evidence behind their
adjustments
Deductions for Late Submissions
Deliverables submitted after the published deadline will have a grade penalty of 10% per 24-hour
period, or fraction thereof, applied to their evaluation
COURSE DETAILS

Deliverable Summaries
These summaries provide an overview of the high-level goals and requirements for the major
course deliverables. More complete descriptions and assessment rubrics for each deliverable can
be found in the Appendix to this document.
Note that these deliverables are similar to those found in other design courses offered within the
Faculty of Applies Science and Engineering, specifically Engineering Strategies and Practice,
Praxis I and II, AER201, ECE297, and the Departmental capstone design courses.
Students and Teams are expected to negotiate submission details (e.g. length, format, typography,
etc.) with their Supervisor and Client. They are also strongly encouraged to leverage the expertise
of their Supervisor and of Faculty support resources prior to submitting a deliverable (e.g.
though one or more assessed drafts, practice presentations, etc.)

Design Portfolio (Week of April 04)


The Design Portfolio deliverable captures evidence of Student engineering design knowledge,
abilities and experiences. It must include evidence from APS490 and may include evidence from
other curricular, co-curricular, or extra-curricular design experiences. The Portfolio supports
Student claims of proficiency as an engineer and engineering designer, and is intended for a wide
audience that will include their Supervisor and may include (e.g.) prospective employers,
collaborators, and research supervisors.
Supervisors may use evidence from the Design Portfolio to adjust a Students share of an
MCP Team grade. They may also request formative drafts of the Portfolio during the
course.

Workshops (various)
Students are expected to participate in the six APS490 Workshops that are scheduled throughout
for the F and S terms. These Workshops will target specific APS490 knowledge, skills, and
deliverables. Each Workshop is also intended to inform and contribute to the Design Portfolio.
Each Workshop has two objectives. The first is to ensure that all Students reflect on their
education and experiences as engineering designers, communicators, and team members. The
second is to provide additional instruction and resources that enable Students and Teams to
leverage and excel in APS490. In pursuit of these objectives each Workshop will incorporate
similar activities:
Asking Students to recall and record their understanding and previous experiences
Augmenting the Student recollections with additional materials and perspectives
Having each student self-assess their current levels of understanding and skill
Facilitating the Students and Teams as they develop learning and application plans
A more detailed schedule of the Workshops, including specific dates and times, will be released
as the course progresses.

Project Requirements (Week of October 26)


The Project Requirements deliverable frames the Statement of Need as an engineering design
project. Teams will be expected to identify and consult with stakeholders (including the Client
and Supervisor) and to undertake additional research (into, e.g., relevant Codes, Standards, norms
of practice, etc.) to develop a complete and comprehensive framing. The Project Requirements
also define the scope of the project.
Core to this deliverable is the set of requirements that are identified for the project. These
requirements are based on information provided by the stakeholders (e.g. their goals, needs,
DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES

wants, etc.) and on the research undertaken by the Team. The requirements should be framed
using an accepted model (e.g. { Functions, Constraints, Objectives }, { Objectives, Metrics,
Constraints, Criteria }, etc.).

Design Proposal (Week of November 30)


The Design Proposal deliverable codifies and documents a proposed solution that addresses the
Project Requirements. The Proposal should document an iterative process of conceptual
divergence, analysis, and convergence, including alternative designs, that resulted in the proposed
solution. The Design Proposal may also include reframed or additional requirements identified as
the proposed solution was developed.
The Design Proposal deliverable also lays the groundwork for further refining the proposed
solution into the Final Report and Deliverables. This groundwork should include a project plan
(including, e.g., milestones, final deliverables, responsibilities, etc.) that can result in a credible
and substantive design solution.

Design Review and Critique (Week of February 01)


The Design Review and Critique should be scheduled to enable as many stakeholders as possible
to attend. Students should arrange for a recording if a key stakeholder cannot attend.
The Design Review and Critique deliverable is an assessed and evaluated instance of the ongoing
meetings between the Team and their Supervisor. The Team, their Supervisor, and, if schedules
permit, their Client will be in attendance. The Team will present and defend their evolved design
solution and their key detailed design decisions. As appropriate the Team should demonstrate
prototype(s) of their solution.
The format of the Design Review and Critique is at the discretion of the Supervisor, however it
should include both a structured presentation element (the Review) and an unstructured
interactive element (the Critique). In response to the Critique the Team may be required to
complete additional design iterations before proceeding to the remaining deliverables.

Final Report and Deliverables (Week of March 14)


The Final Report and Deliverables close the working relationship between the Client and the
Team. The Final Report contains the complete design process from definition of the problem to
the implementation of the solution and the results of testing (reflecting suitable iterations). It
contains a discussion of the required future work in sufficient detail that the Client can implement
the design without additional input from the Team. A well-written Final Report will make it clear
to the Supervisor where the project required disciplinary knowledge and how that knowledge was
applied.
While the contents of the Report will be unique to the project, elements may include: engineering
drawings; analysis and simulation results; bills of materials; training manuals; code;
implementation plan; test plan and results; business process models; regulations, standards, and
intellectual property; environmental, social, and economic analysis.
The Final Deliverables include any prototypes (functional or non-), software, simulations, etc.,
that the Team defined in their Design Proposal.

DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES

Design Showcase (Day TBD during the week of March 21)


The Design Showcase is a public forum at which students present their preliminary designs. The
Showcase attendees will include the Teams Supervisor and may include their Client and other
interested parties. Teams will present to a variety of audiences who will have differing familiarity
with the project and varying technical and nontechnical backgrounds.
Teams should be prepared to engage attendees in a dialogue about their project. While this
dialogue may involve limited prepared remarks, the focus should be on interaction e.g.
answering questions, facilitating discussion, demonstrating, etc. as attendees circulate through
the venue. The primary purpose of the Design Showcase is to give Teams the experience of
presenting their design activities in a public and dynamic context. Only Supervisors will evaluate
Teams at the Design Showcase. Other attendees may provide structured feedback to the
Supervisors that informs their evaluation.
Each Team will have a designated presentation space within the Design Showcase venue and will
be provided with a poster board and a table. Teams must prepare and deliver a large format
poster. They may choose to include other project deliverables (e.g. prototypes(s), demonstrations,
handouts, etc.) subject to the constraints of the venue and the approval of their Supervisor.
Prior to the Showcase, Teams can request that their presentation space have specific features (e.g.
electrical power, extra clearance, etc.). Teams may also have their posters printed for them free of
charge. Teams who would like to take advantage of these resources must complete the following
action items by the indicated dates.
Date

Action Item

4 weeks before the


Showcase

Submit a request for any additional presentation space features to


the Engineering Design Programs Assistant

3 weeks before the


Showcase

(If under NDA) acquire Client approval for the content of the
Design Showcase project deliverables to your Supervisor

2 weeks before the


Showcase

Submit an appropriately formatted PDF of your large format


poster to the Engineering Design Programs Assistant for printing

2 weeks before the


Showcase

Submit an appropriately formatted PDF of your Single Page


Description to the Engineering Design Programs Assistant

1 week before the


Showcase

Confirm the additional presentation space features with the


Engineering Design Programs Assistant and submit the Project
Prcis to the Engineering Design Programs Assistant

Teams who do not submit their poster to the Engineering Design Programs Assistant by the date
given above will be responsible for, and will bear the cost of having it printed themselves.
Teams are required to discuss the specifics of their Design Showcase project deliverables with
their Supervisor and Client well in advance of the Showcase. All Teams operating under a
Nondisclosure Agreement must obtain written approval from their Client on the content of their
Design Showcase project deliverables prior to participating in the Showcase. Failure to obtain
Client approval will result in the Team being excluded from the Showcase and a grade of 0 on the
APS490 Showcase deliverable.

DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES

10

Single Page Description (Two weeks prior to the Design Showcase)


The Single Page Description is a concise summary of the complete design project suitable for
rapid assimilation by an interested audience. The Single Page Descriptions will be collated into a
brochure that will be provided to guests at the Design Showcase. They may also be used for
promotional purposes.
The Single Page Description will help Teams to identify and refine their key messages, to
develop their poster, and to prepare for the Design Showcase. It will also help assessors at the
Design Showcase to focus their attention and target their questions.

DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES

11

Supporting and Partner Organizations


On behalf of the MCP, the Course Coordinator thanks the following organizations for their
support, inspiration, and leadership in multidisciplinary engineering design education:

12

Appendix 1 Deliverable Rubrics

13

Project:

Grade:

/ 10

Team Members!
Name and Student No.

Proposed Deliverable Weights!


(Completed by the Supervisor in consultation with the Team)

Deliverable

Weight Deliverable

Weight

Project Requirements (10 w 30)

Design Critique (10 w 30)

Design Proposal (5 w 30)

Final Report and Deliverables (15 w 30)

Note that the weights must total 65.

Level of performance
Deliverable element
Description of the design challenge
Identification and profiling of stakeholders
Selection and use of engineering reference materials
Development of engineering requirements and scoping
Identification and description of design priorities
Integration of multidisciplinary engineering design practices
(e.g. from previous instruction, work experience, etc.)
Design of the deliverable itself
(e.g. structure, visuals, clarity, cohesion)
Integrity of the arguments made in the deliverable
(e.g. claims, evidence, justification, source use, etc.)

Exceeds
Below
Meets
Unacceptable expectations expectations expectations

Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.

Holistic critique of the deliverable and the proposed weights


Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade.

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Primary Objectives for this deliverable


Frame the project as an engineering design activity (rather than as e.g. a tinkering activity)
Capture relevant information from appropriate stakeholders and reference sources
(e.g. codes, standards, patents, handbooks, norms of practice, etc.)
Develop and scope appropriate engineering requirements
Note that the Objectives for this deliverable are similar to those for the APS111 and APS112 Product Design Specification,
the .ESC101 Design Brief, and the ESC102 Request for Proposals.

Constraints (check those that were met and note any deductions in the Holistic critique)
There are no constraints on this deliverable

Performance level Aggregate description


Unacceptable

Missing essential elements of a deliverable of this type; no evidence of research or direct


stakeholder engagement; superficial and cursory discussion; essential engineering elements
missing (e.g. safety, cost, etc.); shows little or no awareness of what distinguishes engineering
design from tinkering; applies little or no material from previous design instruction; the
deliverable itself contains glaring flaws in design and argument; the readers ability to make
sense of the content is compromised by issues in the writing; essentially was a waste of the
supervisors and clients time

Below expectations Includes most of the expected elements of an engineering deliverable of this type, regardless
of their utility; minimal research, predominantly from sources with minimal credibility or
utility; a mix of acceptable and superficial discussion; expected engineering elements and
stakeholders included; evidence of some superficial understanding of the nature of
engineering design activities; limited or superficial use of materials from previous engineering
design education; noticeable issues in deliverable design and engineering communication but
none that significantly detract from the reading experience; too many easily refuted
arguments; provides sufficient information to provide feedback and request additional
information or effort.
Meets expectations Evidence of a considered deliverable that suits the project under discussion; evidence of
primary source use in the form or literature or direct stakeholder discussions; discussion at an
appropriate level of depth with some very insightful elements and only occasional lapses into
superficiality; consideration of both expected elements of engineering design and specific,
non-standard ones that suit the project and the client; evidence of care and consideration in
the design of the deliverable itself; largely replicates past design instruction; arguments are
generally based in evidence and logic with few, if any gaps or inconsistencies; the primary gaps
come from a lack of experience; enough to provide tailored feedback that is valuable to the
team; helps the client and the supervisor refine their understanding of the design project
Exceeds
expectations

Presents all of the necessary information in a way that is easily assimilated without sacrificing
detail; based on a mix of research, experience, interviews, other credible sources, stakeholder
engagement, etc.; essentially a steady stream of material that elicits I agree or I hadnt
considered that from the supervisor and client; incorporates a defined position on and
approach to engineering design drawn from theory, research, and practice; shows evidence of
growth as engineering designers beyond initial training; provides the client and supervisor with
confidence and insights into the design situation, the team, and the practice of engineering
design in the project context

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN PROPOSAL ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Project:

Grade:

/ 10

Level of performance
Deliverable element

Minimally
Adequately
Fails to meet
Exceeds
meets
meets
expectations expectations expectations expectations

Improved understanding of the


{ problem, issue, situation } (as necessary)

Addition or refinement of stakeholders and their profiles (as


necessary)

Refinement of engineering requirements


(e.g. Objectives, Metrics, Criteria, Constraints )

Development of divergent (e.g. breadth and variety)


design alternatives

Appropriate selection of preferred design decisions from sets


of candidate alternatives

Use of iteration to refine both the understanding of the design


problem (e.g. stakeholder, requirements, etc.) and of the
candidate design solutions

Descriptions of the preferred design decisions and their


performance against the requirements

Refinements to the project plan (as necessary)

Engineering arguments, including appropriate claims,


evidence, and justification

Clear textual and graphical communication

Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.

Holistic critique of the deliverable


Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade.

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN PROPOSAL ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Primary objectives for this deliverable


Refine the understanding of the project to enable further design activities
Engage in and document one or more cycles of engineering-appropriate divergence and convergence, leading to a set
of key design decisions
Propose
and present a candidate design for further development

Note that the objectives for this deliverable are similar to those for the APS111 and APS112 Conceptual Design Report, and the
ESC101 Conceptual Design Report.

Constraints (check those that were met and note any deductions in the Holistic critique of the deliverable)
There are no constraints on this deliverable

Performance level Aggregate description


Unacceptable

Missing essential elements of a deliverable of this type; makes no effort to rectify flaws in the
previous deliverable; no evidence of continued research or stakeholder engagement;
superficial and cursory discussion; essential engineering elements missing (e.g. safety, cost, etc.);
shows little or no awareness of what distinguishes engineering design from tinkering or
hacking; applies little or no material from previous design instruction; the deliverable itself
contains glaring flaws in design and argument; the readers ability to make sense of the
content is compromised by issues in the writing; essentially was a waste of the supervisors and
clients time

Below expectations Includes most of the expected elements of an engineering deliverable of this type, regardless
of their utility; makes some misguided efforts to rectify flaws in the previous deliverable;
minimal additional research, predominantly from sources with minimal credibility or utility; a
mix of acceptable and superficial discussion; expected engineering elements and stakeholders
included; evidence of some superficial understanding of the nature of engineering design
activities; limited or superficial use of materials from previous engineering design education;
noticeable issues in deliverable design and engineering communication but none that
significantly detract from the reading experience; too many easily refuted arguments; provides
sufficient information to provide feedback and request additional information or effort.
Meets expectations Evidence of a considered deliverable that suits the project under discussion; addresses the key
deficiencies of the previous deliverable; continued evidence of primary source use in the form
or literature or direct stakeholder discussions; discussion at an appropriate level of depth with
some very insightful elements and only occasional lapses into superficiality; consideration of
both expected elements of engineering design and specific, non-standard ones that suit the
project and the client; evidence of care and consideration in the design of the deliverable
itself; largely replicates past design instruction; arguments are generally based in evidence and
logic with few, if any gaps or inconsistencies; the primary gaps come from a lack of
experience; enough to provide tailored feedback that is valuable to the team; helps the client
and the supervisor refine their understanding of the design project
Exceeds
expectations

Presents all of the necessary information in a way that is easily assimilated without sacrificing
detail; all flaws in the previous deliverable are addressed; based on a mix of additional
research, new experiences, interviews, other credible sources, stakeholder engagement, etc.;
essentially a steady stream of material that elicits I agree or I hadnt considered that from
the supervisor and client; incorporates a defined position on and approach to engineering
design drawn from theory, research, and practice; shows evidence of growth as engineering
designers beyond initial training; provides the client and supervisor with confidence and
insights into the design situation, the team, and the practice of engineering design in the
project context

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN CRITIQUE ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Project:

Grade:

/ 10

Constraints (check those that were met and note any deductions in the Holistic critique of the deliverable)
Must incorporate a structured, didactic element (e.g. presentation, demonstration, report, etc.)
Must incorporate an unstructured, interactive element (i.e. targeted questions-and-answers)

Level of performance
Deliverable element

Fails to meet
Exceeds
Below
Meets
expectations expectations expectations expectations

The quality of the holistic (e.g. system-level) and analytic


(e.g. component-level) description of the selected design

The performance of the selected design relative to the


requirements defined in earlier deliverables

The quality and execution of the engineering design process


used to develop the selected design

The credibility of the work plan presented to develop a final


design based on the selected design

The quality of the answers given to the questions posed during


the Design Critique

Evidence of effective teamwork, both during the Design


Critique and during the design activities described therein

The quality of the presentation, including delivery, and of any


aids provided to the Supervisor to support the critique

Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.

Holistic critique of the deliverable


Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade.

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN CRITIQUE ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Primary objectives for this deliverable


Provide an interim, structured report
make a Go / No Go decision
Defend your design solution(s) and key design decision(s) in an unstructured, interactive, and pointed environment
1

Note that the report could be delivered verbally, as a written document, or in some other form negotiated between the Team and
the Supervisor

Note that the objectives for this deliverable are similar to those for the ESC101 and ESC102 Design Critique, the AER201
Performance Evaluation, and the MIE 490 / 491 Design Review.

Performance level Aggregate description


Fails to meet
expectations

Supervisor comes away from the critique confused or misunderstanding the state of the project;
Supervisor is effectively unable to make a Go / No Go decision due to lack of credible information;
design decision(s) and solutions(s) appear arbitrary, unconsidered, and lacking in rigour; the Team
appears not to have selected a design for further development; no or very cursory high level overview of
the selected design; no, vague, or pointless descriptions of details of the selected design; design fails to
meet one or more of its constraints, does not meet minimum performance levels, or no longer meets the
project objectives; little or no evidence of the Team having followed an engineering design process; no,
vague, or untenable work plan presented; questions were not answered, avoided or answered with bluffs
and supposition; Team appears to be a single individual or a dysfunctional collection of individuals; no
or poorly crafted aids that detracted from the credibility of the Team.

Below expectations Supervisor comes away from the critique with a general understanding of the state of the project but

large gaps remain; Supervisor is able to make a Go / No Go decision however their confidence in the
teams ability to complete the project is low; design decision(s) and solutions(s) appear to have been the
result of minimal or cursory consideration and effort; the Team has selected, with little or no
justification, a design that will be pursued further; high level overview is incomplete but adequately
frames the solution; most critical design elements are discussed although their interconnections are
largely ignored or implied; design passes all constraints, performs at a minimal level, and largely still
addresses the project objectives; a basic engineering design process is claimed, and some minimal
evidence is presented that key elements of the process were followed; a vague, overly high level work
plan is presented, possibly with dubious time estimates; most questions were addressed directly with
minimal attempts to dissemble; contributions among the team member are unbalanced but all members
have contributed; aids show evidence of some thought and care and do support the Teams claims.

Meets expectations Supervisor comes away from the critique with sufficient understanding of the state of the project that

they can confidently make a Go / No Go decision and provide specific advice to support the Teams
activities; design decision(s) and solutions(s) reflect the level of consideration, effort, and skill expected of
a capstone design student; the Team has chosen using credible means a design to pursue and has made
progress towards completing that design; both system- and component-level descriptions provide the
Supervisor with confidence in the overall approach and details of the solution; interactions and
tradeoffs between the design components and decisions are explored; design meets its requirements and
performs at a level such that minimal revisions to the core elements is necessary; convincing evidence of
having followed an accepted engineering design process is available; a work plan suitable for monitoring
and corrective action is presented, along with reasonable estimates; questions were addressed directly,
explored in-the-moment or deferred for future investigation; team appears to be functioning as an
integrated whole with equitable contributions and mutual support and respect; aids support the Teams
claims and show evidence of having themselves been designed for the purposes of the Critique.

Exceeds
expectations

Supervisor comes away from the critique with few or no misgivings about the Teams progress, process,
functioning, or abilities as engineering designers. The information presented is of a kind and quality
that would allow the Supervisor to confidently present the state of the project and results to others. The
Teams activities, design decision(s) and solutions(s) demonstrate initiative and self-directed learning,
resulting in levels of consideration, effort, and skill commensurate with those in industry or graduate
studies; the quality of the design is at a level that meets or exceeds the abilities of the Supervisor and
SMEs; the work plan instills confidence in the Supervisor and provides both fallback and opportunistic
options for the Team; the Team has executed a tailored design process that integrates academic and
industry practices; the Team anticipated many of the questions that were asked, and were able to
confidently and conclusively answer questions that were unforeseen; the Team operates as a mutually
supporting community where each members skills are respected and weaknesses acknowledged; aids
are suitable for immediate presentation to the Client, investors, or at an academic conference.

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 FINAL REPORT AND DELIVERABLES ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Project:

Grade:

/ 10

Constraints (check those that were met and note any deductions in the Holistic critique of the deliverable)
Must include a formal engineering design report that covers both the design product and the design process
Should include all of the deliverables specified in the Design Proposal, unless prior arrangements were made with the

Client and Supervisor to omit one of more of those deliverables

Level of performance
Deliverable element

Fails to meet
Below
Meets
Exceeds
expectations expectations expectations expectations

The completeness and appropriateness of the design product


documentation

The quality of the design product, including its performance


relative to the requirements as defined in earlier deliverables

The completeness and appropriateness of the design process


documentation

The quality of the documented design process, relative to the


standards taught previously and expected in industry

The quality and utility of any prototypes developed during the


development of the final design

The quality of any additional deliverables created during the


development of the Final Design

The credibility of the development plan provided to the Client


to complete, implement, or iterate on the final design

The quality of the design product and process documentation


as works of engineering communication

Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.

Holistic critique of the deliverable


Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade.

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 FINAL REPORT AND DELIVERABLES ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Primary objectives for this deliverable


Document the engineering design product(s) that your team produced
Your product documentation will be unique to your project. Elements of your documentation may include: engineering
drawings; bills of materials; assembly instructions; protocols, manuals; etc.

Document the complete engineering design process your team followed


Your process documentation will be unique to your project. In addition to appropriate elements from previous deliverables,
elements of your process documentation may include: refined requirements; records of divergence and convergence;
implementation plans; test plans and results; environmental, social, and economic analysis; simulation results; etc.

(As appropriate) provide prototype(s) of appropriate type and fidelity to your Client
(As appropriate) provide your Client with any additional deliverables detailed in your Design Proposal
Note that the objectives for this deliverable are similar to those of the AER201 Final Report, the ECE496 Final Report, and the MIE
490 / 491 Final Report.

Performance level Aggregate description


Fails to meet
expectations

Product documentation missing entirely or missing key elements; mandatory documentation for a
product of this type is missing; one or both of analytic of holistic product descriptions is missing;
documentation does not follow the conventions of its type; product fails to meet its design constraints;
assessments of product performance are suspect or dubious; process documentation missing entirely or
missing key elements; process documentation is presented largely as narrative; design process credibility
is dubious; the documented process qualifies as neither design nor engineering; prototypes(s) have no
identified fidelity or purpose; prototype(s) detract from the credibility of the design; additional
deliverables detract from or add no value to the design; no, an overly generic, or an infeasible
development plan; documents suffer from an excess of poor organization, disorganized structure,
imprecise or unprofessional language, distracting prose, poor or poorly integrated non-textual elements

Below expectations Product documentation includes most expected elements, regardless of their utility; mandatory

documentation is present but is cursory or of dubious quality; both holistic and analytic descriptions are
present but are cursory or missing key design features or elements; product barely meets its constraints;
product performs poorly relative to its requirements; process documentation includes most of the
expected stages of an engineering design process; evidence and quality is highly varied among the
process stages; the documented process is recognizable as an attempt to imitate engineering design;
prototypes embody defined, albeit minimally useful, fidelities and purposes; documentation does not
demonstrate care or thoughtfulness on the part of the authors; prototype(s) and additional deliverables
are effectively neutral with respect to credibility; development plan is missing key elements or includes
nave assumptions ; documents suffer from one or more of: poor organization, disorganized structure,
imprecise or unprofessional language, distracting prose, poor or poorly integrated non-textual elements

Meets expectations Both product and process documentation include the elements expected of them; some appropriate,

additional elements included to enhance the documents; key design decisions at the holistic and analytic
levels are credibly presented and justified; product easily meets its constraints and performs acceptably
against its criteria; a traditional engineering design process was demonstrably undertaken and
completed; few or no areas of noticeable weakness in either the product or process; evidence of
consideration in the selection and implementation of prototype(s) and additional deliverables;
prototype(s) and additional deliverables enhance the credibility of the design and process although their
Return on Investment (ROI). may be suspect; development plan follows from and builds on the work
completed during the course; documents have traditional organization, largely coherent structure, use
appropriate and professional languages, have prose that does not detract from the reading experience,
and appropriately integrate useful non-textual elements

Exceeds
expectations

Product and process documentation are appropriately tailored to the project without sacrificing
completeness; key design decisions and their consequences are integrated within and across holistic and
analytic descriptions; product performs above the expectations of the Client, Supervisor, and SMEs; the
engineering design process was adapted to suit the needs of the project without sacrificing rigour or
professional norms; prototype(s) and additional deliverables elegantly support the credibility of the
design and process with high ROI; development plan is suitable to guide future development by other
engineers or engineering students; the reader experience is enhanced by one or more of: tailored
organization, integrated structure, use of professional, disciplinary, and appropriate language, elegant
prose that enables efficient and effective assimilation of information, and the appropriate use and
integration of non-textual elements

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN SHOWCASE ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Project:

Grade:

/ 10

Constraints (check those that were met and note any deductions in the Holistic critique of the deliverable)
Must include a large format poster
(If under NDA) must have obtained Client approval for all Showcase content (including poster, prototypes, etc.)

Level of performance
Deliverable element

Fails to meet
Exceeds
Below
Meets
expectations expectations expectations expectations

Support for the claims made about (e.g.) the design(s),


design process, analysis, synthesis, prototyping, etc.

Organization of content within each of, and between the


poster, presentation, discussion, and other deliverables

Realtime integration between the presentation, poster,


and other deliverables

Tailoring of the presentation and discussion to meet the needs


of different audiences

Integration and interactions between members of the Team

Quality of the poster as a standalone visual artifact

Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.

Holistic critique of the deliverable


Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade.

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN SHOWCASE ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Primary objectives for this deliverable


Provide Teams with the experience of presenting their design deliverables (product, process, or both) in a public and
dynamic context
Expose Teams to the large format poster as a distinct genre within engineering communication
Note that the objectives for this deliverable are similar to those for the Design Showcase in ESC102 and MIE490, the Design Fair in
ECE496, and to the Project Demonstration in AER201

Performance level Aggregate description


Fails to meet
expectations

Lacks credible evidence and/or transitions to link evidence w/claim on poster or in


presentation; deliverables lack discernible internal organization; little or no evidence of crossdeliverable organization; lack of integration /use of appropriate means of engagement,
including vocal and physical, visual and textual elements; mode, language, organization and /
or content inappropriate to identified audience; only one person speaks, speaks for others; uses
text or visuals only; difficult to read / understand.

Below expectations Evidence may lack credibility or relevance; structure impedes linking of evidence to claim;
organization of oral and visual presentation is inconsistent; elements may be linked or
orphaned; vocal and physical delivery and / or visual and textual elements are disjointed at
times; inconsistent relationship between mode, language, content choices and needs of
audience; shared presentation duties as a series of solos; choices of combination of visuals and
text ineffective or not incorporated with content.
Meets expectations Uses credible evidence with appropriate rhetorical and visual tools to support claims;
organization signals relationships among and between deliverables and key messages; a
combination of vocal and physical delivery, visual and textual elements meet the needs of
content and context; language, mode and content choices clearly indicate intended audience;
attempts to coordinate presentation content; mostly smooth handoffs; combination of visuals
and text accomplish a clear rhetorical purpose.
Exceeds
expectations

Presents a persuasive engineering argument in support of claim; structure facilitates


comprehension by diverse viewers with different goals; seamless integration of vocal and
physical delivery, visual and textual elements; language, mode and content choices meet the
needs of multiple audiences; transitions are continuous; collaborative responses; creative use
of visuals and text to accomplish a clear and compelling rhetorical purpose.

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN SHOWCASE RUBRIC

Project:

Assessor:

Fails to meet expectations

Below expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds expectations

Unable to
Assess

Support for the claims made about (e.g.) the design(s), design process, analysis, synthesis, prototyping, etc.
Lacks credible evidence and/or transitions
to link evidence w/claim on poster or in
presentation

Evidence may lack credibility or


relevance; structure impedes linking
of evidence to claim

Uses credible evidence with appropriate


rhetorical and visual tools to support claims

Presents a persuasive engineering


argument in support of claim

Organization of content within each of, and between the poster, presentation, discussion, and other deliverables
Deliverables lack discernible internal
organization; little or no evidence of crossdeliverable organization

Organization of oral and visual


Organization signals relationships among
presentation is inconsistent; elements and between deliverables and key messages
may be linked or orphaned

Structure facilitates
comprehension by diverse viewers
with different goals

A combination of vocal and physical delivery, Seamless integration of vocal and


visual and textual elements meet the needs of physical delivery, visual and
content and context
textual elements

Realtime integration between the presentation, poster, and other deliverables


Lack of integration /use of appropriate
means of engagement, including vocal and
physical, visual and textual elements

Vocal and physical delivery and / or


visual and textual elements are
disjointed at times

Tailoring of the presentation and discussion to meet the needs of different audiences
Mode, language, organization and / or
Inconsistent relationship between
Language, mode and content choices clearly
content inappropriate to identified audience mode, language, content choices and indicate intended audience
needs of audience

Language, mode and content


choices meet the needs of multiple
audiences

Integration and interactions between members of the Team


Only one person speaks, speaks for others

Shared presentation duties as a series Attempts to coordinate presentation content; Transitions are continuous;
mostly smooth handoffs
collaborative responses

of solos

Quality of the poster as a standalone visual artifact


Uses text or visuals only; difficult to read /
understand

Choices of combination of visuals


and text ineffective or not
incorporated with content

Holistic critique of the Teams Design Showcase performance!

REV 1.0!

Combination of visuals and text accomplish


a clear rhetorical purpose

Creative use of visuals and text to


accomplish a clear and compelling
rhetorical purpose

Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to your comments.

PLEASE WRITE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Student:

UTORid:

Grade:

/ 10

Constraints (check those that were met and note any deductions in the Holistic critique of the deliverable)
Must include evidence captured during APS490

Note that having consulted with their Supervisor, Students may choose to also include relevant evidence from previous
curricular and co-curricular design experiences.

Level of performance
Deliverable element

Fails to meet
Below
Meets
Exceeds
expectations expectations expectations expectations

Coverage of engineering and engineering design knowledge,


abilities, experiences, and approach(es)

Evidence of individual proficiency as an engineer and


engineering designer

Evidence of growth in individual proficiency as an


engineer and engineering designer

Evidence of reflection on individual proficiency and growth


that targets future professional and educational activities

The credibility of the evidence provided in the Portfolio to


substantiate claims of proficiency and growth

The quality of the arguments made in the Portfolio regarding


proficiency, growth, and reflection

Appropriateness of the Portfolio to its chosen target audience


(e.g. Supervisor, prospective employers, collaborators, etc.)

The organization, presentation, and quality of the Portfolio as


a work of engineering communication

Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.

Holistic critique of the deliverable


Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade.

APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION

Primary objectives for this deliverable

Document each students individual contributions in APS490


Capture each students unique engineering design knowledge, abilities, experiences, and approach
Support student claims of both proficiency and growth as an engineering and engineering designer
Support students as they prepare to transition towards practicing as an engineer

Note that the Design Portfolio may be used by Supervisors as evidence to adjust APS490 Team grades.!
Note also that the exact format of the Design Portfolio (e.g. one or more sections embedded in another deliverable, a separate
document, a notebook, a website, a video, etc.) should be negotiated between the Student and their Supervisor.

Performance level Aggregate description


Fails to meet
expectations

Fails to discuss one or both of engineering or engineering design; discusses only one of knowledge,
abilities, experiences, or approaches; demonstrates no or little proficiency as an engineer; provides no or
little evidence of proficiency as an engineer or engineering designer; provides only a blurrysnapshot
of individual proficiency; does not discuss activities in APS490; no or surface reflection without focus on
future activities; evidence is missing, appears fabricated, contradicts other records, or is otherwise
unable to substantiate the claims being made; arguments are facile or fail to connect claims to device;
fails to meet the Supervisors needs; is inappropriate in form or content for any non-Supervisory
audience(s); cannot be located or is difficult to locate or access; shows no or little evidence of
organization; is unprofessional in tone or language; Portfolio appears to have been treated as an
afterthought or make-work

Below expectations Focuses predominantly on one of engineering or engineering design; omits more than one of

knowledge, abilities, experiences, or approaches; demonstrates the engineering (design) proficiency of a


first or second year student; provides minimal, scattered evidence of proficiency; predominantly a
snapshot of proficiency with a small number of growth areas mentioned; discusses APS490 activities
for which no other evidence exists; hyperbolic or shallow reflections with minimal focus on future
activities; evidence is scattered, incomplete, or largely fails to substantiate the claims being made;
arguments are over reliant on ethos or pathos, or fail to fully leverage the available evidence; provides
the Supervisor with a subset of the information they either require or requested; mistargets any nonSupervisory audience(s) without being inappropriate; requires unnecessary effort on the part of the
reader to locate or access; organization detracts from the readers experience and ability to assimilate
the content; language is overly colloquial or technical; tone is inappropriate but not unprofessional;
Portfolio has received some attention but does not appear to be the result of considered work

Meets expectations Focuses separately on both engineering and engineering design; omits one of knowledge, abilities,

experiences, or approaches; demonstrates the engineering (design) proficiency of a fourth year student;
provides a package of evidence sufficient in scale to demonstrate proficiency; balances discussions of
current proficiency with the growth that led to that proficiency; links to well-documented APS490
activities; reflections demonstrate some degree of self-awareness; reflections inform future growth;
sufficient evidence is provided to substantiate the key claims being made; arguments appropriately
leverage the available evidence in a balanced manner; provides the Supervisor with the type and
quantity of information required or requested; additional audience(s) are appropriately targeted;
integration between the Supervisor and non-Supervisory audiences is poor or incomplete; reader is
easily able to locate and access the Portfolio; organization largely matches the assignment; language and
tone are appropriate for a pre-professional engineer; Portfolio appears to largely be the result of
considered work

Exceeds
expectations

Integrates discussion of engineering and engineering design; covers all of knowledge, abilities,
experiences, or approaches; demonstrates engineering (design) proficiency beyond that expected of an
undergraduate student; evidence demonstrate care in selection and integration; balanced and integrated
discussion of growth and current levels of proficiency; prioritizes and integrates key elements of
APS490 activities; reflections demonstrate self-awareness sufficient to appropriately target future growth
initiatives; evidence shows care in selection and prioritization; arguments balance and integrate different
types or evidence; materials for the Supervisor and non-Supervisory audiences are integrated such that
all audiences are similarly served; Portfolio is presented in an easily located, accessed, and navigable
medium; evidence of a considered organization that leverages the chosen medium to enhance the
readers experience; language and tone enhanced the authors credibility and the readers experience;
Portfolio appears to be the result of an (engineering) design approach and mentality

Оценить