REVISION 0.9 – LAST EDITED 2015-09-09

2015 / 2016

Course Guide

Multidisciplinary Capstone Design

(APS490Y)

APS490Y – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2014 / 2015

INSTRUCTIONAL TEAM 1

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)

COURSE OVERVIEW 2

An experience in multi-disciplinary engineering practice through a significant, open-

ended, 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 Client’s and the MCP’s 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

CIV498H1

MIE490Y1

MIE491Y1

ECE496Y1

ESC470H1

ESC471H1

ESC472H1

MSE498Y1

Students who are accepted into the MCP are excluded from taking their program’s 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 3

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 DETAILS 4

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 5

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 6

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

65%

Team Supervisor

Design Proposal Team Supervisor, and Client1

Design Critique Team Supervisor and Client1

Final Report and Deliverables Team Supervisor and Client1

Design Showcase

Includes the Single Page Description

15% Team Supervisor and Client1

Design Portfolio 20% Student Supervisor

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

1 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 7

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.

Deliverable

Min

Weight

Nominal

Weight

Max

Weight

Framing Deliverables

Project Requirements 10% 15% 30%

Design Proposal 5% 10% 30%

Implementation Deliverables

Design Critique 10% 15% 30%

Final Report and Deliverables 15% 25% 30%

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

DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES 8

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 Student’s 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 9

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 10

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 Team’s 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

Précis 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 11

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.

12

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:

13

Appendix 1 – Deliverable Rubrics

Project: Grade: . / 10

Team Members!Name and Student No.

Proposed Deliverable Weights!(Completed by the Supervisor in consultation with the Team)

Deliverable Weight Deliverable WeightProject 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 UnacceptableBelow

expectationsMeets

expectationsExceeds

expectations

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.) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

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 weightsPlease 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 descriptionUnacceptable 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 reader’s ability to make sense of the content is compromised by issues in the writing; essentially was a waste of the supervisor’s and client’s 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 hadn’t 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 elementFails to meet expectations

Minimally meets

expectations

Adequately meets

expectationsExceeds

expectationsImproved 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 deliverablePlease 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 descriptionUnacceptable 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 reader’s ability to make sense of the content is compromised by issues in the writing; essentially was a waste of the supervisor’s and client’s 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 hadn’t 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 elementFails to meet expectations

Below expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds 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 deliverablePlease 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 descriptionFails 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 team’s 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 Team’s 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 Team’s 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 Team’s 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 Team’s 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 Team’s 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 member’s 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 expectations

Below expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds 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 deliverablePlease 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 descriptionFails 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 naïve 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 elementFails to meet expectations

Below expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds 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 deliverablePlease 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 descriptionFails 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 cross-deliverable 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 deliverablesDeliverables lack discernible internal organization; little or no evidence of cross-deliverable organization

Organization of oral and visual presentation is inconsistent; elements may be linked or orphaned

Organization signals relationships among and between deliverables and key messages

Structure facilitates comprehension by diverse viewers with different goals

☐

Realtime integration between the presentation, poster, and other deliverablesLack 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

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

Seamless integration of vocal and physical delivery, visual and textual elements ☐

Tailoring of the presentation and discussion to meet the needs of different audiencesMode, language, organization and / or content inappropriate to identified audience

Inconsistent relationship between mode, language, content choices and needs of audience

Language, mode and content choices clearly indicate intended 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

of solosAttempts to coordinate presentation content; mostly smooth handoffs

Transitions are continuous; collaborative responses ☐

Quality of the poster as a standalone visual artifactUses text or visuals only; difficult to read / understand

Choices of combination of visuals and text ineffective or not incorporated with content

Combination of visuals and text accomplish a clear rhetorical purpose

Creative use of visuals and text to accomplish a clear and compelling rhetorical purpose

☐

Holistic critique of the Team’s Design Showcase performance! Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to your comments.

REV 1.0! 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 expectations

Below expectations

Meets expectations

Exceeds 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 deliverablePlease 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 student’s individual contributions in APS490 • Capture each student’s 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 descriptionFails 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 blurry“snapshot” 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 Supervisor’s 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 non-Supervisory audience(s) without being inappropriate; requires unnecessary effort on the part of the reader to locate or access; organization detracts from the reader’s 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 author’s credibility and the readers’ experience; Portfolio appears to be the result of an (engineering) design approach and mentality