Robotics Education & Competition Foundation
Inspiring students, one robot at a time.

Rubric Criteria Clarification

Gina Wade (Event Partner)

The Engineering Notebook Rubric has a criteria this year labeled Innovation/Originality. I have heard two different interpretations of this criteria.

One interpretation relies heavily on the Q&A titled Independent Inquiry from December 14th: In this interpretation, teams can earn expert level points by demonstrating and documenting the steps of the design process such as "brainstorming, testing, and exploring alternative solutions," and doing so "from the beginning stages" of their season.

The second interpretation ties this criteria directly and solely to the Innovate award. Per this interpretation, points would be awarded based on the teams' submissions for the Innovate award. Judges evaluate the submitted innovation and teams can earn expert level points if the submission they've made demonstrates and documents the steps of the design process for that specific innovation. Importantly- teams without an Innovate submission may earn zero points under this interpretation. I am not certain which language in the Guide or Q&A this interpretation relies on, though I recognize that the criteria was introduced earlier this season as directly relating to the Innovate award.

Would the Competition Judging committee be willing to weigh in on these two fairly different interpretations and give guidance on which, if either, is the intention of the new criteria?

Answered by Competition Judging Committee

The first interpretation is correct. The specific criteria in the rubric is not directly connected to the Innovate Award.

The Innovate Award is based off of the specific award criteria, some of which reference or have overlap with the Design Award.

As is general policy: rubrics are designed as tools for filtering many teams into a smaller subset of award candidates - no overall or single line item score on a rubric is meant to be the determining factor for any award winners.