You are on page 1of 4

Catapult Project Rubric

Catapult construction

Proposal

Categ
ory

Sub
category

5

4

3

2

1

Written
proposal

Written proposal
displays sufficient
consideration of
subject matter and
high level of planning

The proposal
contains sufficient
detail or planning but
lacks discussion of
physics concepts

The proposal
lacks detail of
either the design
or the underlying
concepts.

The proposal was
submitted but
lacks detail of
design or
concepts.

No proposal
was submitted

Prototype
catapult

Prototype is well
constructed and
allows for early design
modifications

The prototype was
well constructed and
afforded limited
insight into the
design

The prototype
was submitted
but the student
failed to properly
identify potential
problems.

The student
submitted a
prototype but it
was poorly made
and limited
analysis of the
design

The student
did not build a
prototype of
their design

Overall
design

The catapult has been
constructed to a high
quality and is well
suited to its task.

The catapult is well
constructed but there
is some evidence of a
rushed construction

The catapult has
been put together
in a rushed
manner and may
not be well suited
to the task

The catapult was
rushed and illsuited to the
task. It is unable
to fulfill the
designated task

Students failed
to build a
working
catapult

Quality of
constructi
on

The catapult has been
constructed to
withstand multiple
trials and has not
broken beyond minor
repairs

The catapult broke
during the second set
of trials.

The catapult
broke before the
second set of
trials

The catapult
broke beyond
repair during the
first set of trials.

The catapult
broke on or
before the first
trial

Applicatio
n of
knowledg
e

The design displayed
effective application of
physics concepts, in
many cases there is
evidence of high level
thinking and
application

The design displayed
effective application
of knowledge but
lacked signs of much
high level thinking

The design
fulfilled the task
requirements but
there is little
evidence of
physics concepts
being deliberately
utilized in the
design

The design is ill
conceived or
poorly executed.
There is little or
no evidence of
physics
knowledge in the
design

The design is
ill conceived
and clearly
shown little or
no
appreciation
for physics and
mathematical
concepts

Accuracy

The catapult was able
to hit all 3 targets at
least once. (Mr.
McLean witnessed
this)

The catapult was
able to hit 2/3 targets
at least once

The catapult was
able to hit 1/3
targets at least
once

The catapult was
unable to hit any
targets (as
witnessed by Mr.
McLean)

The student
was caught
falsifying
results

Consisten
cy

The catapult was able
to consistently hit the
targets or it was
possible to adjust the
accuracy so that the
targets could be hit.

The catapult was
able to consistently
hit 2/3 targets

The catapult was
able to hit 1/3
targets
consistently

The catapult was
not able to
consistently hit
any of the
targets and it
was not possible
to easily adjust
the accuracy

The student
was caught
falsifying
results

Safety

Safety was clearly a
factor in the design
process. The design
has no obvious unsafe
aspects and it was
operated with care at
all times.

The catapult was
generally safe but
the students selected
an unsafe projectile

The catapult was
generally safe but
was operated in
an unsafe manner

The catapult was
designed in a
safe manner but
was utilized in an
unsafe way on
more than one
occasion

The design is
clearly unsafe
or was utilized
in an unsafe
manner
resulting in
avoidable
injury

Data Collection phase 1
Design Modifcations
Data Collection phase 2

Table
constructi
on

The table is neat and
the student has used a
spreadsheet or word
program to produce it

The table has been at
least partially
produced on
computer with the
rest of the results
hand written

The table is neatly
hand drawn but
the student has
not used a
spreadsheet or
word document

The table is hand
drawn and the
results are
written down in a
manner that is
unclear

The student
was caught
falsifying
results or did
not construct a
table

Data
collected

The student far
exceeded
expectations and
collected 60+ data
points for each target

The student
exceeded
expectations and
collected 40-59 data
points per target

The student met
expectations and
collected 20 data
points for each
target

The student fell
below
expectations and
collected fewer
than 20 data
points per target

The student
was caught
The student
was caught
falsifying
results or did
not construct a
table

Analysis
of design

The student has made
insightful observations
regarding the
effectiveness of the
design and the
underlying physics
concepts

The design was
altered and some
level of
understanding was
displayed regarding
the physics concepts
underlying these
changes.

The design was
altered but there
was little or no
understanding
displayed
regarding the
physics concepts
surrounding these
changes

Minor changes
were made to
the design but
there was no
understanding
displayed as to
the physics
concepts behind
these changes.

No attempt
was made to
analyze the
effectiveness
of the design

Implemen
tation of
analysis

The student used the
data collected in
session 1 to make
significant alterations
to the design and
demonstrated a deep
understanding of the
physics concepts
involved

The student made
significant alterations
to the design and
displayed some
knowledge as to the
physics concepts
underlying these
changes

The design was
altered and a
limited level of
understanding of
the physics
concepts
underpinning
these changes
displayed

No attempt was
made to alter
the design or the
alterations were
not based on
data or
observations

No attempt
was made to
alter the
design

Table
constructi
on

The table is neat and
the student has used a
spreadsheet or word
program to produce it

The table has been at
least partially
produced on
computer with the
rest of the results
hand written

The table is neatly
hand drawn but
the student has
not used a
spreadsheet or
word document

The table is hand
drawn and the
results are
written down in a
manner that is
unclear

The student
was caught
falsifying
results or did
not construct a
table

Data
collected

The student far
exceeded
expectations and
collected 60+ data
points for each target

The student
exceeded
expectations and
collected 40-59 data
points per target

The student met
expectations and
collected 20 data
points for each
target

The student fell
below
expectations and
collected fewer
than 20 data
points per target

The student
was caught
falsifying
results or did
not construct a
table

General
standards

The supporting
evidence is of a high
standard. All
components have
been produced on
computer and
supplementary
pictures are used
throughout.
Presentation and
organization is
excellent

The supporting
evidence is has been
completed to a high
standard with good
presentation and
organization
throughout

The supporting
evidence has
been produced to
a good standard
but may lack
some depth and
detail

The supporting
evidence was
not completed
on computer
and/or may be
missing 2 or
more essential
components

The project is
not introduced
and the
student does
not refer to the
scientific
method or the
design brief

Supporting evidence

Mastery
of
concepts

The student displays
high levels of
understanding and
application of physics
concepts during all
phases of the project.

The student displays
good understanding
of physics concepts
during some of the
project

The student
displays limited
understanding of
physics concepts
throughout the
project

The student
displays
occasional
knowledge of
physics concepts
but this is often
sporadic and
inconsistent or
there are
frequently errors.

The student
displays no
understanding
of any of the
physics
concepts
utilized in
his/her project

Design

The student has
outlined every step of
the design process.
The final design is well
thought out and
displays a high level of
understanding of
physics concepts

The student has
provided evidence
that they have
followed the design
process. Conceptual
understanding is
mostly basic but
occasionally more
nuanced

The student has
shown some
evidence of
following the
design process
and a basic level
of understanding
of physics
concepts in
his/her design

The student is
missing either
evidence of the
design process
or understanding
of the physics
concepts
involved in this
project

Constructi
on

The student has
provided evidence as
to the physics
concepts utilized in
the construction of the
catapult. The level of
understanding is of a
high standard
throughout

The student has
provided mostly basic
evidence as to the
physics concepts
utilized in this
project. The level of
understanding
displayed is
occasionally
nuanced.

The student has
provided basic
evidence as to the
physics concepts
utilized in this
project

The student has
provided
evidence for
some of the
concepts utilized
in this project
but this evidence
is incomplete or
of a basic nature.

Testing

The student has
provided a complete
and accurate
description of the
testing process and
has been entirely
honest in reporting
results.

The student is
missing either a
description of the
testing process or a
full set of data points.

The student has
both an
incomplete
description of the
testing process
and an
incomplete set of
results.

The student
entirely missing
either a
description of
the testing
process or the
results of the
testing

Redesign

The modifications
made to the design
are based on a high
level of understanding
of the physics
concepts involved in
the design

The modifications
made to the design
are based physics
concepts and the
understanding
displayed is
occasionally nuanced

The student has
provided a
description of how
the design was
modified and this
is supported by a
basic level of
conceptual
understanding

The student has
described how
the design was
modified but this
is not supported
by a sound
understanding of
physics concepts

The student
has provided
no evidence
that the design
process has
been followed
and no
evidence of
understanding
of physics
concepts
The student
has provided
no evidence as
to the physics
utilized in the
construction of
the catapult or
the evidence
provided in
factually
incomplete.
The student
has not
provided a
description of
the testing
process or has
been caught
falsifying
results.
The student
has provided
no evidence
that the design
was modified
in any way

Rubric Summary and Grade Sheet
Category

Sub Category
1

Written
Prototype
Constructi Overall Design
Quality of
on
construction
Application of
Proposal

2

Score
3
4

5

Tot
al

Knowledge
Accuracy
Consistency
Safety
Data
Table construction
Collection Data Collected
1
Design
Analysis of Design
Modifcati Implementation of
Analysis
ons
Data
Table construction
Collection Data Collected
2
General Standards
Mastery of Concepts
Supportin
Design
g
Construction
Evidence
Testing
Redesign
Grand Total

Comments: