You are on page 1of 27

Multidisciplinary Capstone Design

(APS490Y)

Course Guide
2015 / 2016

REVISION 0.9 – LAST EDITED 2015-09-09

APS490Y – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2014 / 2015

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

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

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

Goldie Nejat (MEC/IRM)

Jim Davis (UTIAS & EngSci)

Graeme Norval (CHE)

Rodrigo Fernandez-Gonzalez (IBBME)

Daman Panesar (CIV)

Jason Foster (EngSci)

Khoman Phang (ECE)

Greg Jamieson (IND)

Chandra Singh (MSE)

Don Kirk (CHE)

Deborah Tihanyi (ECP)

Yuri A. Lawryshyn (CHE)

INSTRUCTIONAL TEAM

1

Supervisors are selected from among the pool of FASE design instructors. and the value of the outcome to the Client Committed and significant resources provided by the NSERC Design Chair and the FASE COURSE OVERVIEW 2 . client-driven design project in which student teams address stakeholder needs through the use of a creative and iterative design process. openended. and is responsible for ensuring that both the Client’s and the MCP’s desired outcomes materialize. All of the projects are also explicitly multidisciplinary in nature – successfully completing the project will require skills and knowledge from across multiple engineering disciplines. Relationship to Other Capstone Design Courses The MCP provides a capstone design experience. The Supervisor is the primary point of contact for both the Client and the Teams. All of the projects in the MCP have an industry Client for whom the project represents a real business need.An experience in multi-disciplinary engineering practice through a significant. and experience as an engineering designer within their discipline. multidisciplinary nature. knowledge. Students who would like to work on an MCP project must apply to the Course Coordinator. What Makes the MCP Unique?    The opportunity to work with students from other disciplines Projects that have been selected for their complexity. with admission to the course based on demonstrated skills. – 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). The MCP is intended for exceptional students who are looking for a challenging capstone design experience. Each MCP project has an associated Supervisor who will work with one or more student Teams. as defined by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) that is compatible with:  CHE430Y1  MIE491Y1  ESC471H1  CIV498H1  ECE496Y1  ESC472H1  MIE490Y1  ESC470H1  MSE498Y1 Students who are accepted into the MCP are excluded from taking their program’s regular capstone design course.

 Appropriately and correctly apply the engineering tools and principles learned in their courses. and successfully engage in self-study to fill those gaps.5)  Individual and team work (GA 3.Learning Objectives Having completed the MCP.1. including framing. the potential ethical and equity impact(s) of their design practice and solutions. approaches. and Clients are encouraged to consult the CEAB “Accreditation Criteria and Procedures” documents. COURSE OVERVIEW 3 . the potential impact(s) of their design on (e. The following GAs will be assessed for all MCP projects:  A knowledge base for engineering (GA 3. available online. and design to mitigate or enhance. Depending on the specific nature of their project.  Assess.1. each student will have demonstrated the ability to:  Reconcile conflicting perspectives. for further details on these GAs.9)  Ethics and equity (GA 3. to an engineering design problem.  Accurately assess gaps in their skills and knowledge. society.7)  Professionalism (GA 3.10)  Economics and project management (GA 3. and through self-study. and design to mitigate or enhance. students in the MCP may also have demonstrated the ability to:  Assess. and transitioning to a further level of refinement. Supervisors.1.6)  Communication skills (GA 3.  Work independently.1.. convergence. etc.1)  Design (GA 3.g. in collaboration with their project supervisor and under the guidance of the Course Coordinator.1. the law.1.1.  Contribute to the performance of an engineering design team.1.  Comport and present themselves in a manner compatible with professional engineering. possibly over an extended period of time.1.8)  Life-long learning (GA 3.) the environment. additional learning objectives or more detailed sub-objectives during the course. Students may develop.12) Depending on the specifics of the project.  Appropriately incorporate economic factors into their design practice and solutions. and. and interpretations in all aspects of an engineering design project.  Plan and execute a complete engineering design project. CEAB Graduate Attributes The CEAB Graduate Attributes (GAs) assessed in the MCP are compatible with those assessed in the related Capstone Design courses. 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 3.11) Student.4)  Use of engineering tools (GA 3.  Professionally communicate their design activities to different audiences using a variety of appropriate media. divergence. or.

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. Course Assistant Primary point of contact for course administrative issues. For projects where no agreements have been made.Course Details Participants Participant Role Course Coordinator Ensure a successful and equitable course experience. Client Initiate and support one or more design projects. 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. Teams Students will work on a single project in a Team comprising three to five members. 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. Also as per this policy. as per the “Policy on Official Correspondence with Students”. students are expected to communicate with their Supervisor and Client using an official University of Toronto email address. COURSE DETAILS 4 . Students Contribute to a successful design project. Departmental Representative Liaise between the MCP and their department. all MCP communications will take place using either the University of Toronto Blackboard learning system or 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. Supervisor Primary point of contact for one or more design projects. 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.

15 Workshop 6 – Supervisory Feedback and Expectations Week of Mar.Timeline The MCP course is scheduled as a ‘Y’ course that run in both the fall and spring semesters. 10 Kickoff Meeting with Students. 04 Design Portfolio due from Students Dates in bold are fixed based on the University of Toronto academic schedule and regulations. Practically the course runs year-round. 21 Workshop 2 – Engineering Design I Week of Sept 28 Workshop 3 – Engineering Management and Communication Week of Oct. COURSE DETAILS 5 . with Clients submitting projects early in the year and Students submitting their applications at the end of the spring semester. 14 Final Report and Deliverables due from Teams Week of Mar. 26  Project Requirements delivered by Teams  TELS Survey 1 Week of Nov. 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. Supervisors and Clients Week of Sept. Supervisors may require submission earlier in the week. 04 Workshop 4 – The Design Portfolio Week of Jan. 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. Exact scheduling for the Workshops will be announced one to two weeks before the Workshops take place. 02 Project Requirement feedback returned by Supervisors Week of Nov. 11 Workshop 5 – Engineering Design II Week of Feb. The remaining dates are subject to Supervisor and Client availability. 14 Workshop 1 – Multidisciplinary Teamwork Week of Sept. 01  Design Review and Critique presented and defended by Teams  TELS Survey 2 Week of Feb. Deliverables must be submitted by Friday at 1700 in the indicated weeks. 08 Design Review and Critique feedback returned by Supervisors Week of Feb. 21 Design Showcase delivered by Teams Week of Apr.

1 The Client may request a copy of the deliverable as submitted to the Supervisor. A tentative meeting schedule should be established at the Kickoff and Feedback Meetings. If Teams need to schedule ad-hoc meetings (e. Deliverables and Weighting Deliverable Weight From To Statement of Need N/A Client Course Coordinator Statement of Intent N/A Student Departmental Representative Project Requirements Team Supervisor Design Proposal Team Supervisor. with their Supervisor or Client) they should provide the participants with at least two business days notice. Supervisors may request that their Teams and Students include a self-assessment with their deliverables. prior to sending it to the Client.g. The Supervisor is also responsible for ensuring that the Client is aware that any deliverable is not the work of trained design engineers. Alternatively the Client may request a tailored deliverable. and Client1 Team Supervisor and Client1 Team Supervisor and Client1 15% Team Supervisor and Client1 20% Student Supervisor Design Critique 65% Final Report and Deliverables Design Showcase Includes the Single Page Description Design Portfolio Short summaries of the deliverables can be found starting on page 8. given the wide variety of MCP projects  comprehensive and rigorous. COURSE DETAILS 6 . given the wide variety MCP projects and Client expectations  flexible to Students and Supervisors. Assessment and Deliverables Assessment and evaluation in the MCP has the objectives of being:  fair to Students. 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. to ensure quality.Ongoing Meetings Teams are strongly encouraged to meet with their Supervisor a minimum of once every two weeks throughout the course. In either case the Supervisor may require that Teams revise a deliverable. Supervisors submit their evaluations to the Course Coordinator who is responsible for ensuring fairness across the different projects.

Each Team is nonetheless expected to undertake all of the stages of a nominal engineering design project. Supervisors and Students should discuss and agree on a mutually acceptable mechanism for tracking contributions early in the course. some Teams may need to focus on the framing elements of the project (e. the Supervisor will assign the nominal weights.) which students were responsible for the different sections of the deliverable. During the Fall term. The Supervisor would review the Notebooks prior to assigning final grades. Supervisor.g.g. the Design Critique and Final Report and Deliverables). Team Grades By default all Team members receive an identical grade on Team deliverables. (Used in AER201)  Requiring that the students include an Attribution Table with each deliverable submission that records (e. These weights are subject to minimums and maximums specific in the table below. In the event that weights are not submitted. and Client are expected to negotiate weights for each of the framing and implementation deliverables that are appropriate for the specific project. the Team.Flexible Deliverable Weights Because of the wide variety of MCP projects and Client expectations. There are many ways that a Supervisor can gather information on individual contributions in order to determine whether differentiated grades are needed. applied to their evaluation COURSE DETAILS 7 . 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. (Used in ESP)  Assigning each student responsibility for different sections of the deliverables as part of project planning. This table also provides nominal weights that represent a typical breakdown. Nominal Weight Max Weight 10% 15% 30% 5% 10% 30% Design Critique 10% 15% 30% Final Report and Deliverables 15% 25% 30% Deliverable Min Weight Framing Deliverables Project Requirements Design Proposal Implementation Deliverables The Team must submit the agreed up weights to their Supervisor as part of the Project Requirements deliverable and must commit to those weights. Project Requirements and Design Proposal) while others may focus on the implementation elements (e.g. or fraction thereof. (Used in CHE430)  Having students complete a survey in which they indicate their and their team mates’ contributions to the different deliverables. 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.

) Design Portfolio (Week of April 04) The Design Portfolio deliverable captures evidence of Student engineering design knowledge. Supervisors may use evidence from the Design Portfolio to adjust a Student’s share of an MCP Team grade. or extra-curricular design experiences.) prospective employers. 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. communicators. ECE297. These requirements are based on information provided by the stakeholders (e. relevant Codes. Project Requirements (Week of October 26) The Project Requirements deliverable frames the Statement of Need as an engineering design project.) with their Supervisor and Client. Note that these deliverables are similar to those found in other design courses offered within the Faculty of Applies Science and Engineering.g. format. Each Workshop is also intended to inform and contribute to the Design Portfolio. Students and Teams are expected to negotiate submission details (e. The first is to ensure that all Students reflect on their education and experiences as engineering designers. abilities and experiences. and team members. and the Departmental capstone design courses. Each Workshop has two objectives. will be released as the course progresses. specifically Engineering Strategies and Practice. etc. e. etc. Core to this deliverable is the set of requirements that are identified for the project. Praxis I and II. collaborators. their goals.g. practice presentations. AER201. The Portfolio supports Student claims of proficiency as an engineer and engineering designer.g.g. etc. though one or more assessed drafts. and research supervisors. DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES 8 . needs. They may also request formative drafts of the Portfolio during the course. The second is to provide additional instruction and resources that enable Students and Teams to leverage and excel in APS490. typography. co-curricular. including specific dates and times. They are also strongly encouraged to leverage the expertise of their Supervisor and of Faculty support resources prior to submitting a deliverable (e. and deliverables. Teams will be expected to identify and consult with stakeholders (including the Client and Supervisor) and to undertake additional research (into.. Standards. length. These Workshops will target specific APS490 knowledge. More complete descriptions and assessment rubrics for each deliverable can be found in the Appendix to this document.g. Workshops (various) Students are expected to participate in the six APS490 Workshops that are scheduled throughout for the F and S terms. It must include evidence from APS490 and may include evidence from other curricular. norms of practice.) to develop a complete and comprehensive framing. and is intended for a wide audience that will include their Supervisor and may include (e.Deliverable Summaries These summaries provide an overview of the high-level goals and requirements for the major course deliverables. skills. The Project Requirements also define the scope of the project.

The Proposal should document an iterative process of conceptual divergence. if schedules permit. The Team. and convergence. and intellectual property. This groundwork should include a project plan (including. including alternative designs. test plan and results. Criteria }. A well-written Final Report will make it clear to the Supervisor where the project required disciplinary knowledge and how that knowledge was applied. The Team will present and defend their evolved design solution and their key detailed design decisions. regulations. training manuals.g. e. analysis and simulation results. Design Proposal (Week of November 30) The Design Proposal deliverable codifies and documents a proposed solution that addresses the Project Requirements. standards. etc. { Objectives. 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.g. social. simulations. The requirements should be framed using an accepted model (e. The Design Review and Critique deliverable is an assessed and evaluated instance of the ongoing meetings between the Team and their Supervisor. their Client will be in attendance. Final Report and Deliverables (Week of March 14) The Final Report and Deliverables close the working relationship between the Client and the Team. however it should include both a structured presentation element (the “Review”) and an unstructured interactive element (the “Critique”).. While the contents of the Report will be unique to the project. that the Team defined in their Design Proposal. environmental.). analysis. 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. The Design Proposal deliverable also lays the groundwork for further refining the proposed solution into the Final Report and Deliverables.) that can result in a credible and substantive design solution. The format of the Design Review and Critique is at the discretion of the Supervisor. implementation plan. { Functions. The Design Proposal may also include reframed or additional requirements identified as the proposed solution was developed. etc. software. that resulted in the proposed solution. The Final Deliverables include any prototypes (functional or non-). As appropriate the Team should demonstrate prototype(s) of their solution. business process models. responsibilities. Constraints.wants. their Supervisor. Objectives }. Metrics. DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES 9 .. Constraints. bills of materials. and economic analysis. and. etc. In response to the Critique the Team may be required to complete additional design iterations before proceeding to the remaining deliverables. etc. Students should arrange for a recording if a key stakeholder cannot attend. code. final deliverables. milestones. elements may include: engineering drawings.) and on the research undertaken by 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).

demonstrating.g.Design Showcase (Day TBD during the week of March 21) The Design Showcase is a public forum at which students present their preliminary designs. and will bear the cost of having it printed themselves. Prior to the Showcase. Teams are required to discuss the specifics of their Design Showcase project deliverables with their Supervisor and Client well in advance of the Showcase. Teams will present to a variety of audiences who will have differing familiarity with the project and varying technical and nontechnical backgrounds. answering questions.g. prototypes(s). They may choose to include other project deliverables (e. – as attendees circulate through the venue. Teams may also have their posters printed for them free of charge. extra clearance. Teams must prepare and deliver a large format poster. demonstrations. handouts. Each Team will have a designated presentation space within the Design Showcase venue and will be provided with a poster board and a table. While this dialogue may involve limited prepared remarks. etc. 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. electrical power. 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.). the focus should be on interaction – e.) subject to the constraints of the venue and the approval of their Supervisor. The Showcase attendees will include the Team’s Supervisor and may include their Client and other interested parties. Teams can request that their presentation space have specific features (e. facilitating discussion. 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. 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. Teams should be prepared to engage attendees in a dialogue about their project. etc. Teams who would like to take advantage of these resources must complete the following action items by the indicated dates. etc. DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES 10 .g.

The Single Page Description will help Teams to identify and refine their key messages. and to prepare for the Design Showcase. It will also help assessors at the Design Showcase to focus their attention and target their questions. to develop their poster. The Single Page Descriptions will be collated into a brochure that will be provided to guests at the Design Showcase.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. DELIVERABLE SUMMARIES 11 . They may also be used for promotional purposes.

the Course Coordinator thanks the following organizations for their support.Supporting and Partner Organizations On behalf of the MCP. inspiration. and leadership in multidisciplinary engineering design education: 12 .

Appendix 1 – Deliverable Rubrics 13 .

Proposed Deliverable Weights! (Completed by the Supervisor in consultation with the Team) Deliverable Weight Deliverable Weight Project Requirements (10 ≤ w ≤ 30) Design Critique (10 ≤ w ≤ 30) Design Proposal (5 ≤ w ≤ 30) Final Report and Deliverables (15 ≤ w ≤ 30) Note that the weights must total 65. visuals. / 10 Team Members! Name and Student No.g. Holistic critique of the deliverable and the proposed weights Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade. from previous instruction. APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ASSIGNMENT.) 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.) Design of the deliverable itself
 (e. clarity. work experience.g. ASSESSMENT.g.Project: Grade: . source use. evidence. 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. claims. AND EVALUATION . cohesion) Integrity of the arguments made in the deliverable
 (e. etc. structure. etc. justification.

Constraints (check those that were met and note any deductions in the Holistic critique) There are no constraints on this deliverable Performance level Aggregate description Unacceptable Missing essential elements of a deliverable of this type. AND EVALUATION . limited or superficial use of materials from previous engineering design education. interviews. Meets expectations Evidence of a considered deliverable that suits the project under discussion. the . evidence of primary source use in the form or literature or direct stakeholder discussions. the team. handbooks. and the practice of engineering design in the project context APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ASSIGNMENT. 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. superficial and cursory discussion. standards. non-standard ones that suit the project and the client. patents.). incorporates a defined position on and approach to engineering design drawn from theory. cost.) • 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. experience. and practice. stakeholder engagement.g. expected engineering elements and stakeholders included. etc. the reader’s ability to make sense of the content is compromised by issues in the writing. consideration of both expected elements of engineering design and specific. essential engineering elements missing (e. 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. provides the client and supervisor with confidence and insights into the design situation. etc. codes. arguments are generally based in evidence and logic with few. shows little or no awareness of what distinguishes engineering design from tinkering. a mix of acceptable and superficial discussion. shows evidence of growth as engineering designers beyond initial training. if any gaps or inconsistencies. largely replicates past design instruction.Primary Objectives for this deliverable • Frame the project as an engineering design activity (rather than as e. other credible sources. ASSESSMENT.g. evidence of care and consideration in the design of the deliverable itself. enough to provide tailored feedback that is valuable to the team.g. a tinkering activity) • Capture relevant information from appropriate stakeholders and reference sources 
 (e. no evidence of research or direct stakeholder engagement. discussion at an appropriate level of depth with some very insightful elements and only occasional lapses into superficiality. norms of practice. provides sufficient information to provide feedback and request additional information or effort. the deliverable itself contains glaring flaws in design and argument. safety. noticeable issues in deliverable design and engineering communication but none that significantly detract from the reading experience. research. evidence of some superficial understanding of the nature of engineering design activities.. and the ESC102 Request for Proposals. etc. too many easily refuted arguments.ESC101 Design Brief. predominantly from sources with minimal credibility or utility. essentially a steady stream of material that elicits “I agree” or “I hadn’t considered that” from the supervisor and client. based on a mix of research. the primary gaps come from a lack of experience. applies little or no material from previous design instruction. minimal research.

Criteria. Holistic critique of the deliverable Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade. Metrics. requirements. situation } (as necessary) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Addition or refinement of stakeholders and their profiles (as necessary) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Refinement of engineering requirements 
 (e.APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – DESIGN PROPOSAL ASSIGNMENT. issue.) 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.g.g. . / 10 Level of performance Deliverable element Minimally Adequately Fails to meet Exceeds meets meets expectations expectations expectations expectations Improved understanding of the 
 { problem. Constraints ) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Development of divergent (e. 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. evidence. etc. stakeholder. including appropriate claims. there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox. and justification ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Clear textual and graphical communication ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback. Objectives. ASSESSMENT.g. AND EVALUATION Project: Grade: .

evidence of care and consideration in the design of the deliverable itself. and the ESC101 Conceptual Design Report. 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. no evidence of continued research or stakeholder engagement. non-standard ones that suit the project and the client. superficial and cursory discussion. predominantly from sources with minimal credibility or utility. too many easily refuted arguments. addresses the key deficiencies of the previous deliverable. etc. evidence of some superficial understanding of the nature of engineering design activities. Meets expectations Evidence of a considered deliverable that suits the project under discussion. 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.). largely replicates past design instruction. and practice. makes no effort to rectify flaws in the previous deliverable. ASSESSMENT. essentially a steady stream of material that elicits “I agree” or “I hadn’t considered that” from the supervisor and client. new experiences.g. all flaws in the previous deliverable are addressed. minimal additional research. research. shows little or no awareness of what distinguishes engineering design from “tinkering” or “hacking”. if any gaps or inconsistencies. 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. makes some misguided efforts to rectify flaws in the previous deliverable. discussion at an appropriate level of depth with some very insightful elements and only occasional lapses into superficiality. cost. safety. provides sufficient information to provide feedback and request additional information or effort. shows evidence of growth as engineering designers beyond initial training. interviews. expected engineering elements and stakeholders included. the team. 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. etc.APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – DESIGN PROPOSAL ASSIGNMENT. regardless of their utility. arguments are generally based in evidence and logic with few. enough to provide tailored feedback that is valuable to the team. a mix of acceptable and superficial discussion. other credible sources. the deliverable itself contains glaring flaws in design and argument. provides the client and supervisor with confidence and insights into the design situation. the primary gaps come from a lack of experience. continued evidence of primary source use in the form or literature or direct stakeholder discussions. Constraints (check those that were met and note any deductions in the “Holistic critique of the deliverable”) There are no constraints on this deliverable Performance level Aggregate description Unacceptable Missing essential elements of a deliverable of this type.. incorporates a defined position on and approach to engineering design drawn from theory. 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. and the practice of engineering design in the project context . based on a mix of additional research. stakeholder engagement. essential engineering elements missing (e. consideration of both expected elements of engineering design and specific. applies little or no material from previous design instruction. the reader’s ability to make sense of the content is compromised by issues in the writing.

didactic element (e.) ☐ Must incorporate an unstructured. etc. interactive element (i.e. system-level) and analytic 
 (e.g. demonstration. including delivery. and of any aids provided to the Supervisor to support the critique ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback. presentation. there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox. Holistic critique of the deliverable Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade.APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – DESIGN CRITIQUE ASSIGNMENT.g. report.g. ! . 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. both during the Design Critique and during the design activities described therein ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The quality of the presentation. targeted questions-and-answers) Level of performance Deliverable element Fails to meet Exceeds Below Meets expectations expectations expectations expectations The quality of the holistic (e. ASSESSMENT. 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.

the Team anticipated many of the questions that were asked. explored in-the-moment or deferred for future investigation. or pointless descriptions of details of the selected design. Below expectations Supervisor comes away from the critique with a general understanding of the state of the project but large gaps remain. Supervisor is effectively unable to make a “Go / No Go” decision due to lack of credible information. 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. no. interactions and tradeoffs between the design components and decisions are explored. interactive. vague. or untenable work plan presented. avoided or answered with bluffs and supposition. the Team has executed a tailored design process that integrates academic and industry practices. process. effort. 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. and skill commensurate with those in industry or graduate studies. . and were able to confidently and conclusively answer questions that were unforeseen. and the MIE 490 / 491 Design Review. little or no evidence of the Team having followed an engineering design process. high level overview is incomplete but adequately frames the solution. or at an academic conference. does not meet minimum performance levels. design meets its requirements and performs at a level such that minimal revisions to the core elements is necessary. design decision(s) and solutions(s) appear to have been the result of minimal or cursory consideration and effort. convincing evidence of having followed an accepted engineering design process is available. Performance level Aggregate description Fails to meet expectations Supervisor comes away from the critique confused or misunderstanding the state of the project. effort. design decision(s) and solutions(s) appear arbitrary. and largely still addresses the project objectives. Team appears to be a single individual or a dysfunctional collection of individuals. questions were addressed directly. design decision(s) and solutions(s) demonstrate initiative and self-directed learning. most questions were addressed directly with minimal attempts to dissemble. the Team has chosen using credible means a design to pursue and has made progress towards completing that design. the AER201 Performance Evaluation. and skill expected of a capstone design student. design decision(s) and solutions(s) reflect the level of consideration. and some minimal evidence is presented that key elements of the process were followed. a work plan suitable for monitoring and corrective action is presented. and lacking in rigour. along with reasonable estimates. or no longer meets the project objectives. Exceeds expectations Supervisor comes away from the critique with few or no misgivings about the Team’s progress.and component-level descriptions provide the Supervisor with confidence in the overall approach and details of the solution. ASSESSMENT. most critical design elements are discussed although their interconnections are largely ignored or implied. design fails to meet one or more of its constraints. questions were not answered. both system. Supervisor is able to make a “Go / No Go” decision however their confidence in the team’s ability to complete the project is low. performs at a minimal level. the Team has selected. team appears to be functioning as an integrated whole with equitable contributions and mutual support and respect. the Team operates as a mutually supporting community where each member’s skills are respected and weaknesses acknowledged. aids support the Team’s claims and show evidence of having themselves been designed for the purposes of the Critique. design passes all constraints. no or poorly crafted aids that detracted from the credibility of the Team. structured report make a “Go / No Go” decision • Defend your design solution(s) and key design decision(s) in an unstructured. 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. possibly with dubious time estimates. AND EVALUATION Primary objectives for this deliverable • Provide an interim. no or very cursory high level overview of the selected design. a design that will be pursued further. no. vague. the Team appears not to have selected a design for further development. unconsidered. a vague. The Team’s activities. or abilities as engineering designers.APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – DESIGN CRITIQUE ASSIGNMENT. functioning. with little or no justification. the work plan instills confidence in the Supervisor and provides both fallback and opportunistic options for the Team. overly high level work plan is presented. resulting in levels of consideration. the quality of the design is at a level that meets or exceeds the abilities of the Supervisor and SMEs. aids show evidence of some thought and care and do support the Team’s claims. and pointed environment 1 Note that the “report” could be delivered verbally. a basic engineering design process is claimed. as a written document. investors. aids are suitable for immediate presentation to the Client. contributions among the team member are unbalanced but all members have contributed.

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. / 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. ASSESSMENT. 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. there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox. unless prior arrangements were made with the Client and Supervisor to omit one of more of those deliverables Level of performance Deliverable element Fails to meet Below Meets Exceeds expectations expectations expectations expectations The completeness and appropriateness of the design product documentation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The quality of the design product. Holistic critique of the deliverable Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade. 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. AND EVALUATION Project: Grade: . ! .APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – FINAL REPORT AND DELIVERABLES ASSIGNMENT.

product performs poorly relative to its requirements. use appropriate and professional languages. the engineering design process was adapted to suit the needs of the project without sacrificing rigour or professional norms. environmental. process documentation is presented largely as narrative. prototypes embody defined. the documented process qualifies as neither “design” nor engineering. regardless of their utility. key design decisions and their consequences are integrated within and across holistic and analytic descriptions. records of divergence and convergence. albeit minimally useful. prototypes(s) have no identified fidelity or purpose. 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. additional deliverables detract from or add no value to the design. imprecise or unprofessional language. bills of materials. key design decisions at the holistic and analytic levels are credibly presented and justified. disorganized structure. poor or poorly integrated non-textual elements Meets expectations Both product and process documentation include the elements expected of them. prototype(s) detract from the credibility of the design. the documented process is recognizable as an attempt to imitate “engineering design”. design process credibility is dubious. use of professional. and the appropriate use and integration of non-textual elements . elements of your process documentation may include: refined requirements. and appropriately integrate useful non-textual elements Exceeds expectations Product and process documentation are appropriately tailored to the project without sacrificing completeness. disciplinary. test plans and results. disorganized structure. In addition to appropriate elements from previous deliverables. social. product easily meets its constraints and performs acceptably against its criteria. largely coherent structure. poor or poorly integrated non-textual elements Below expectations Product documentation includes most expected elements. elegant prose that enables efficient and effective assimilation of information.APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – FINAL REPORT AND DELIVERABLES ASSIGNMENT. etc. prototype(s) and additional deliverables are effectively neutral with respect to credibility. prototype(s) and additional deliverables elegantly support the credibility of the design and process with high ROI. the ECE496 Final Report. product performs above the expectations of the Client. additional elements included to enhance the documents. development plan follows from and builds on the work completed during the course. simulation results. and economic analysis. and SMEs. may be suspect. prototype(s) and additional deliverables enhance the credibility of the design and process although their Return on Investment (ROI). a “traditional” engineering design process was demonstrably undertaken and completed. Supervisor. distracting prose. evidence and quality is highly varied among the process stages. an overly generic. integrated structure. mandatory documentation for a product of this type is missing. product fails to meet its design constraints. assembly instructions. mandatory documentation is present but is cursory or of dubious quality. or an infeasible development plan. protocols. documents have “traditional” organization. documentation does not follow the conventions of its type. documentation does not demonstrate care or thoughtfulness on the part of the authors. development plan is suitable to guide future development by other engineers or engineering students. assessments of product performance are suspect or dubious. imprecise or unprofessional language. evidence of consideration in the selection and implementation of prototype(s) and additional deliverables. process documentation missing entirely or missing key elements. Performance level Aggregate description Fails to meet expectations Product documentation missing entirely or missing key elements. both holistic and analytic descriptions are present but are cursory or missing key design features or elements. fidelities and purposes. ASSESSMENT. documents suffer from one or more of: poor organization. manuals. distracting prose. • Document the complete engineering design process your team followed Your process documentation will be unique to your project. and the MIE 490 / 491 Final Report. development plan is missing key elements or includes naïve assumptions . etc. implementation plans. few or no areas of noticeable weakness in either the product or process. one or both of analytic of holistic product descriptions is missing. process documentation includes most of the expected stages of an engineering design process. • (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. Elements of your documentation may include: engineering drawings. some appropriate. the reader experience is enhanced by one or more of: tailored organization. no. and appropriate language. documents suffer from an excess of poor organization. product barely meets its constraints. have prose that does not detract from the reading experience.


 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. etc. presentation.g. poster. / 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. prototyping. there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox. and other deliverables ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Realtime integration between the presentation. 
 design process. etc.) the design(s). prototypes.APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – DESIGN SHOWCASE ASSIGNMENT. discussion. analysis. ASSESSMENT. Holistic critique of the deliverable Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade.) Level of performance Deliverable element Fails to meet Exceeds Below Meets expectations expectations expectations expectations Support for the claims made about (e. AND EVALUATION Project: Grade: . ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Organization of content within each of. and between the poster. . synthesis.

inconsistent relationship between mode. content choices and needs of audience. mode and content choices clearly indicate intended audience. language. Meets expectations Uses credible evidence with appropriate rhetorical and visual tools to support claims. visual and textual elements meet the needs of content and context. including vocal and physical. language. Exceeds expectations Presents a persuasive engineering argument in support of claim. only one person speaks. language. transitions are continuous. structure impedes linking of evidence to claim. choices of combination of visuals and text ineffective or not incorporated with content. AND EVALUATION Primary objectives for this deliverable • Provide Teams with the experience of presenting their design deliverables (product. mode and content choices meet the needs of multiple audiences. attempts to coordinate presentation content. organization signals relationships among and between deliverables and key messages. a combination of vocal and physical delivery. elements may be linked or orphaned. organization and / or content inappropriate to identified audience. 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. combination of visuals and text accomplish a clear rhetorical purpose. . collaborative responses. ASSESSMENT. visual and textual elements. shared presentation duties as a series of solos. difficult to read / understand. vocal and physical delivery and / or visual and textual elements are disjointed at times. lack of integration /use of appropriate means of engagement. language. deliverables lack discernible internal organization.APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – DESIGN SHOWCASE ASSIGNMENT. the Design Fair in ECE496. little or no evidence of crossdeliverable organization. organization of oral and visual presentation is inconsistent. mostly smooth handoffs. Below expectations Evidence may lack credibility or relevance. seamless integration of vocal and physical delivery. mode. and to the Project Demonstration in AER201 Performance level Aggregate description Fails to meet expectations Lacks credible evidence and/or transitions to link evidence w/claim on poster or in presentation. uses text or visuals only. process. speaks for others. structure facilitates comprehension by diverse viewers with different goals. creative use of visuals and text to accomplish a clear and compelling rhetorical purpose. visual and textual elements.

and between the poster. mode and content choices clearly content inappropriate to identified audience mode. and other deliverables Deliverables lack discernible internal organization. prototyping. 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. poster. mostly smooth handoffs collaborative responses ☐ of solos ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Quality of the poster as a standalone visual artifact Uses text or visuals only. design process. difficult to read / understand ☐ Choices of combination of visuals and text ineffective or not incorporated with content ☐ Holistic critique of the Team’s Design Showcase performance! REV 1. speaks for others Shared presentation duties as a series Attempts to coordinate presentation content. language. elements and between deliverables and key messages may be linked or orphaned Structure facilitates comprehension by diverse viewers with different goals ☐ A combination of vocal and physical delivery. etc. little or no evidence of crossdeliverable organization ☐ Organization of oral and visual Organization signals relationships among presentation is inconsistent. Seamless integration of vocal and visual and textual elements meet the needs of physical delivery. language. organization and / or Inconsistent relationship between Language. and other deliverables Lack of integration /use of appropriate means of engagement. content choices and indicate intended audience needs of audience ☐ ☐ ☐ Language. Transitions are continuous. discussion. synthesis. PLEASE WRITE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM . presentation. mode and content choices meet the needs of multiple audiences ☐ ☐ Integration and interactions between members of the Team Only one person speaks.0! Combination of visuals and text accomplish a clear rhetorical purpose ☐ Creative use of visuals and text to accomplish a clear and compelling rhetorical purpose ☐ ☐ Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to your comments.) the design(s). including vocal and physical. analysis.g.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. visual and content and context textual elements ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Realtime integration between the presentation. visual and textual elements ☐ Vocal and physical delivery and / or visual and textual elements are disjointed at times ☐ ☐ ☐ Tailoring of the presentation and discussion to meet the needs of different audiences Mode.

abilities. AND EVALUATION Student: UTORid: Grade: . Supervisor. 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. etc.) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ The organization. collaborators. Students may choose to also include relevant evidence from previous curricular and co-curricular design experiences. ASSESSMENT. and reflection ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Appropriateness of the Portfolio to its chosen target audience (e. presentation. ! ! . Level of performance Deliverable element Fails to meet Below Meets Exceeds expectations expectations expectations expectations Coverage of engineering and engineering design knowledge.APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – DESIGN PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT. growth. prospective employers. experiences. / 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. there are no numerical weights associated with any checkbox. Holistic critique of the deliverable Please reference specific elements of the deliverable that led to the assigned grade. and quality of the Portfolio as a work of engineering communication ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Note that the checkboxes are used only to provide feedback.g.

or fail to fully leverage the available evidence. abilities. evidence is missing. or largely fails to substantiate the claims being made. Portfolio appears to be the result of an (engineering) design approach and mentality .! Note also that the exact format of the Design Portfolio (e. or approaches. experiences. provides a package of evidence sufficient in scale to demonstrate “proficiency”. materials for the Supervisor and non-Supervisory audiences are integrated such that all audiences are similarly served. omits one of knowledge. appears fabricated. arguments balance and integrate different types or evidence. or approaches. provides only a blurry“snapshot” of individual proficiency. prioritizes and integrates key elements of APS490 activities. evidence demonstrate care in selection and integration. abilities. balances discussions of current proficiency with the growth that led to that proficiency. demonstrates engineering (design) proficiency beyond that expected of an undergraduate student. hyperbolic or shallow reflections with minimal focus on future activities. evidence of a considered organization that leverages the chosen medium to enhance the readers’ experience. incomplete. demonstrates the engineering (design) proficiency of a first or second year student. balanced and integrated discussion of growth and current levels of proficiency.) should be negotiated between the Student and their Supervisor. is inappropriate in form or content for any non-Supervisory audience(s). requires unnecessary effort on the part of the reader to locate or access. evidence is scattered. reader is easily able to locate and access the Portfolio. provides minimal. language and tone are appropriate for a pre-professional engineer. one or more sections embedded in another deliverable. demonstrates the engineering (design) proficiency of a fourth year student. discusses only one of knowledge. provides the Supervisor with a subset of the information they either require or requested. experiences. or approaches. shows no or little evidence of organization.APS490 – MULTIDISCIPLINARY CAPSTONE DESIGN – 2015-16 – DESIGN PORTFOLIO ASSIGNMENT. language and tone enhanced the author’s credibility and the readers’ experience. language is overly colloquial or technical. arguments appropriately leverage the available evidence in a balanced manner. “mistargets” any nonSupervisory audience(s) without being inappropriate. ASSESSMENT. a video. contradicts other records. does not discuss activities in APS490. reflections inform future growth. Portfolio appears to have been treated as an afterthought or “make-work” Below expectations Focuses predominantly on one of “engineering” or “engineering design”. demonstrates no or little proficiency as an engineer. Portfolio appears to largely be the result of considered work Exceeds expectations Integrates discussion of “engineering” and “engineering design”. reflections demonstrate self-awareness sufficient to appropriately target future growth initiatives. organization largely matches the assignment. experiences. links to well-documented APS490 activities. arguments are over reliant on ethos or pathos. a website. AND EVALUATION Primary objectives for this deliverable • • • • Document each student’s individual contributions in APS490 Capture each student’s unique engineering design knowledge. 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”. discusses APS490 activities for which no other evidence exists. Portfolio is presented in an easily located. or approaches. integration between the Supervisor and non-Supervisory audiences is poor or incomplete. evidence shows care in selection and prioritization. is unprofessional in tone or language. etc. accessed.g. a separate document. experiences. scattered evidence of proficiency. provides the Supervisor with the type and quantity of information required or requested. abilities. covers all of knowledge. Performance level Aggregate description Fails to meet expectations Fails to discuss one or both of “engineering” or “engineering design”. 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. and navigable medium. provides no or little evidence of proficiency as an engineer or engineering designer. sufficient evidence is provided to substantiate the key claims being made. no or surface reflection without focus on future activities. cannot be located or is difficult to locate or access. or is otherwise unable to substantiate the claims being made. tone is inappropriate but not unprofessional. arguments are facile or fail to connect claims to device. fails to meet the Supervisor’s needs. abilities. additional audience(s) are appropriately targeted. abilities. omits more than one of knowledge. reflections demonstrate some degree of self-awareness. experiences. a notebook. predominantly a “snapshot” of proficiency with a small number of growth areas mentioned. organization detracts from the reader’s experience and ability to assimilate the content.