Scribd
Upload
36 views1 page

MECH 488L: Capstone Design: Notes

This document provides the grading rubric for Deliverable 10 of the MECH 488L Capstone Design course, which involves experimental evidence or technical demonstrations. It is out of 100 total points and evaluates: 1) the explanation of the experimental apparatus, procedure, and motivation (30 points); 2) the results, interpretation, and recommendations (65 points); and 3) references (5 points). Higher scores require more thorough, justified, coherent, and logically concluded work.

Uploaded by

walterbircher
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
36 views1 page

MECH 488L: Capstone Design: Notes

This document provides the grading rubric for Deliverable 10 of the MECH 488L Capstone Design course, which involves experimental evidence or technical demonstrations. It is out of 100 total points and evaluates: 1) the explanation of the experimental apparatus, procedure, and motivation (30 points); 2) the results, interpretation, and recommendations (65 points); and 3) references (5 points). Higher scores require more thorough, justified, coherent, and logically concluded work.

Uploaded by

walterbircher
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MECH 488L: Capstone Design

Assignment: Deliverable 10 (Engineering Experimentation)


Graded by: Walter Bircher & Andy Morgan

Total Points: 100

Notes:
This deliverable provides experimental evidence for your engineering analyses (D7) and/or
more detailed and systematic encapsulation of the technical demos (D9).

Grade Description

30 - Explanation of Experimental Apparatus Excellent: the group identifies critical


and Procedure, and Motivation performance-related capability to evaluate,
thoroughly describes experimental apparatus,
with good justification (30)
Average: the group identifies somewhat
appropriate performance-related capability to
evaluate, partially describes experimental
apparatus, with some justification (20)
Poor: group does not identify appropriate
performance-related capability, does not fully
describe experiment, with little justification for
choices (10)

65 - Results, Interpretation, and Excellent: group clearly displays all


Recommendations experimental results in coherent way with all
appropriate figures and labels, interprets
results in detailed logical way, makes
recommendations based on logical
conclusions (65)
Average: group displays experimental results
with good clarity, provides fair interpretation,
and makes recommendations (40)
Poor: Results are not properly displayed,
interpretations are not well thought out,
recommendations not based on results (20)

5 - References Completeness

You might also like