Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
(APS490Y)
Course Guide
2015 / 2016
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.
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.
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.
COURSE OVERVIEW
Course Details
Participants
Participant
Role
Course Coordinator
Course Assistant
Departmental Representative
Client
Supervisor
Students
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
April 01
FALL SEMESTER
Sept. 10
Week of Sept. 14
Week of Sept. 21
Week of Sept 28
Week of Oct. 26
Week of Nov. 02
Week of Nov. 30
Week of Dec. 14
SPRING SEMESTER
Week of Jan. 04
Week of Jan. 11
Week of Feb. 01
Week of Feb. 08
Week of Feb. 15
Week of Mar. 14
Week of Mar. 21
Week of Apr. 04
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.
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
Team
Team
15%
Team
20%
Student
Supervisor
Design Critique
65%
Design Portfolio
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
Max
Weight
10%
15%
30%
5%
10%
30%
Design Critique
10%
15%
30%
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.)
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.
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.).
DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES
Action Item
(If under NDA) acquire Client approval for the content of the
Design Showcase project deliverables to your Supervisor
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
DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES
11
12
13
Project:
Grade:
/ 10
Team Members!
Name and Student No.
Deliverable
Weight Deliverable
Weight
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.
APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION
Constraints (check those that were met and note any deductions in the Holistic critique)
There are no constraints on this deliverable
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
Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.
APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN PROPOSAL ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION
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
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
Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.
APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN CRITIQUE ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION
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.
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
Level of performance
Deliverable element
Fails to meet
Below
Meets
Exceeds
expectations expectations expectations expectations
Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.
APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 FINAL REPORT AND DELIVERABLES ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION
(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.
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
Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.
APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN SHOWCASE ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION
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
Project:
Assessor:
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
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
Structure facilitates
comprehension by diverse viewers
with different goals
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
Shared presentation duties as a series Attempts to coordinate presentation content; Transitions are continuous;
mostly smooth handoffs
collaborative responses
of solos
REV 1.0!
Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to your comments.
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
Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback; there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox.
APS490 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN 2015-16 DESIGN PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND EVALUATION
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.
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
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