EML2322L – Design Report Grading Guidelines for TAs
Cautions on Providing Feedback
DR1 Grading Guidelines / Resources
DR2 Grading Guidelines / Resources
Motor Mount & Wheel Hub Drawing Review
DR3 Grading Guidelines / Resources
1.
Week Before DR3 First Submission / Design Review
2.
DR3 First Submission / Design Review
DR4 Grading Guidelines / Resources
Purpose of
this Document [RETURN TO TOC]
The purpose of this document is to
train all TAs in the correct and efficient grading of DML design reports. Due to the large quantity of material, our
high expectation for the quality of this work, and the unusually large number
of TAs necessary to run DML, it is extremely important (and difficult!) to
normalize grading among all TAs, regardless of their experience, personality,
or skill level. Therefore, we have
compiled this document to clarify exactly how we want each TA to grade each
assignment. If anything in this document
is unclear, or you believe you may have a suggestion for improvement (to the
document or our currently process), please let Mike know, as that’s the best
way that improvements can be made.
Design Report Grading Philosophy [RETURN
TO TOC]
There are
two things we care about when assessing the quality of the work students submit
(our 80/20 rule for grading):
As noted, we care much more about
the CONTENT of the report than the FORMAT / GRAMMAR / SPELLING. We care about the latter and should highlight
mistakes we find and issue the noted deductions on each assignment grade sheet,
but the CONTENT should always be much
more important to us, because weaknesses, mistakes, and omissions of
CONTENT are what typically jeopardize a group’s chance for success on the
design project.
Cautions on
Providing Feedback [RETURN TO TOC]
Since it’s easy to sabotage the whole
goal of providing trustworthy feedback to our group(s) if not done
thoughtfully, here are few tips:
Color Coding Legend in this
Document [RETURN
TO TOC]
The following color code is used
in this grading guideline to separate the different types of linked documents:
green for
checklists
brown for grading
rubrics
brown w/yellow highlight for grade sheets
Design
Report 1 Grading Guidelines / Resources [RETURN
TO TOC]
DR1 grading sets the expectations
for the rest of the semester, so we need to start off strong by doing the
following:
1. Be familiar with the Design
Project description.
2. Thoroughly read the DR1 Checklist the students are
given to follow (please open or print it while reviewing the rest of this
section).
3. Review a few of the Concept Generation
examples so you see the type of work we show the students we expect on this
assignment (and so you catch students that blatantly
copy): Ex.
1, Ex.
2, Ex.
3
4. Thoroughly read the DR1 Grading Rubric and DR1 Grade Sheet
BEFORE beginning grading and understand the
point value color coding on the grade sheet.
Positive point values in black (e.g.
“2 pts”) denote the points the group (or student) is awarded for doing
something completely correct. Negative
point values in red (e.g. “-1 pt”) denote the
maximum points deducted if that part of the assignment is incorrect or lacking
sufficient detail.
5. If something is very close to correct/perfect, just make a comment on the report/grade
sheet, but issue no deduction.
6. Take a photo
of your completed grade sheet so you can
compare it to the finalized copy handed back to the students after I review
your comments and suggested point deductions.
7. Please do your best to return the graded DR1 to my office within 72 hours so I can review
and normalize all the report grading, remembering that this grading sets the
students’ expectations for all DR grading in the course, so please be fair but thorough. Once I have reviewed and normalized your
grading, I will update the DR
Grading Status Google Sheet linked in the DRT letting your students know their DR1 is ready
for pickup.
|
Common DR1 Mistakes / Weaknesses |
|
1. Copying the example drawings provided on the
website or in the lab |
|
2. Failing to justify design decisions and
material choices with background research |
|
3. Not sketching real motors and instead showing
representative rectangles |
|
4. Not showing real attachment brackets/fasteners
(motor mounts, wheel hubs, 80/20 brackets, …) |
|
5. Selecting aluminum sheet metal (it’s more $$$,
less weldable, and does not offer a significant weight savings) |
|
6. Sketching on the dark side of the engineering
or isometric paper, or sketching so lightly that it’s hard to see |
|
7. Failing to include sketches of buckets/balls
(items being manipulated) with dimensions |
|
8. Rotating landscape sketches so they are upside
down on the page (binder rings should always be at the top) |
|
9. Missing detail views of each mechanism |
|
10. Missing overall dimensions of robot |
|
11. Not referencing each drawing figure in
written description (it doesn’t belong if they have nothing to say about it) |
|
12. Not making each sketch full page |
|
13. Not using a ruler or other (non-electronic)
drawing aids to help with neatness |
Design
Report 2 Grading Guidelines / Resources [RETURN
TO TOC]
It’s important to understand the grading
sequence for DR2:
DR2 First
Submission
1. The DR2
Submission Instructions in the DRT explain EXACTLY what they are to do for
the DR2 First Submission, which includes everything for the first two
evaluation matrices (mobile platform and typically the object manipulator).
Students must submit a minimum of two matrices for their first submission and a
minimum of three matrices (but typically four) for their DR2 resubmission.
2. We also give them a Concept
Selection (DR2) Checklist, so please make sure you
are EXTREMELY familiar with it before doing so!
3. Read the DR2 (Concept Selection) Grading Tips document that
highlights important points for grading this assignment.
4. Read the BAD
Training Matrix Example and complete the BAD
Training Matrix Assessment to check if you’re ready for DR2 grading
(these are very important training documents).
5. Remember
the 80/20 rule: highlight any format/grammar/spelling errors you find and note
them on the report pages, but focus more on content: the quality and
consistence of their objectives, supporting data, and conclusions.
6. We normally begin grading these first two
matrices at the end of lab with the students, but if it’s your first semester,
or if you just prefer to grade without the students watching, feel free to tell
them you will grade their DR2 in a timely fashion and end lab early (if you do
this, however, you should use the rest of the lab block for grading). As you grade your group’s DR2, please
remember the most important goal is to provide helpful and valuable
feedback. Please do your best to complete
your grading within 48 hours and make a note of having done so on the DR
Grading Status Google Sheet.
It’s really important the students receive this feedback ASAP so they
don’t blame us for holding them up. If
you are too busy to grade their DR2 in time, myself or another TA can do it for
you. We cannot
expect more from the students during the upcoming DR2 Resubmission than we do
when grading the first submission.
DR2
Resubmission
1. Please begin by reading the Concept
Selection (DR2 Resubmission) Instructions so you
understand EXACTLY what they are to turn in for the DR2 Resubmission.
2. Complete a new copy of the Concept
Selection (DR2) Checklist for the student’s final
DR2 submission. Remember the 80/20 rule: highlight any
format/grammar/spelling errors you find and note them on the report pages, but
focus more on content: the quality and consistence of their objectives,
supporting data, and conclusions, and whether they heeded your previous week’s
feedback.
3. Thoroughly read the DR2 Grading
Rubric and DR2 Grade Sheet BEFORE beginning
grading and understand the point value color coding on the grade sheet. Positive point values in black (e.g. “2 pts”) denote the points the
group is awarded for doing something completely correct. Negative point values in red (e.g. “-1 pt”)
denote the maximum points deducted if that part of the assignment is incorrect
or lacking sufficient detail.
4. If something is very close to correct/perfect, just make a comment on the
report/grade sheet, but issue no deduction.
5. Remember
we can comment on things we missed the previous week on their first two
matrices (assuming they submitted the material for review), but we cannot make
deductions since that’s our fault (and as long as we learn and it only happens
once, it’s okay).
6. Please do your best to return the graded DR2R to my office within 72 hours so I can review
and normalize all the report grading. As
with DR1, I will update the DR
Grading Status Google Sheet linked in the DRT letting your students know when their DR2R is
ready for pickup.
|
Common DR2 Mistakes / Weaknesses |
|
1. Copying objective definitions and weighting factor
justifications directly from the example |
|
2. Failing to modify poor DR1 concepts so they
could be tested and compared to the other teammates’ concepts |
|
3. Failure to test other choices (like MP motor/wheel
combos) when all members used similar parts |
|
4. Failure to explain each value reported in the
Robot Speed and Time Calculations spreadsheet |
|
5. Failure to explain the calculations submitted
in Appendix A |
|
6. Failure to summarize what was learned from
each test / experiment conducted for DR2 |
|
7. Inconsistent data reported in Appendix /
report body / evaluation matrices |
|
8. Inconsistent (aka non-normalized) data for quantitative
assessments like cost and mfg. time) |
|
9. Inconsistent or illogical use of sig. figs. in
evaluation matrices |
|
10. No delicious tacos, gyros, or pastries
submitted to assist with DR2 final grading J |
Final Design
Checklist / CAD Model Review [RETURN TO TOC]
Students
are instructed to bring a COMPLETE
assembly model for review. This is our
best opportunity to provide constructive feedback. Evaluate completeness, functionality, and
manufacturability. We assign grades for
this assignment using the Final
Design Checklist / Grade Sheet [R], so make sure you are familiar with it. ** PLEASE come
prepared to push through the checklist SWIFTLY. **
|
Common CAD Model Weaknesses |
|
1. Missing attachment brackets, or not enough
brackets for structural rigidity (especially with lifting arms) |
|
2. Using shady attachment methods when properly
designed mounting brackets will work well (this is a course in traditional
design and they should be using the knowledge presented in the design guides) |
|
3. Inappropriate motors for larger torques, large
bending moments on motor shafts (> peak rated torque), press fit motor
hubs |
|
4. Not using all provided motor mounting holes
(except for large Globe motor, which only requires the use of two holes) |
|
5. Incorrect or missing fasteners (especially
common on motors (Entstorts: M6x1.0 screws &
M8x1.25 nuts, Cytrons: M6x1.0 screws, Densos: M4x0.7 screws, Globe: M6x1.0 & ¼-20 x 1″
flat head screws, Molon: 10-32 UNF screws)), using
the wrong fasteners (visually) out of laziness; not suppressing cosmetic
threads |
|
6. Failure to include necessary motor mounting
accessories (plastic spacers for Densos, the
M8x1.25 hex nuts for Entstorts, 4mm keys and snap
rings for the Cytron motors, …) |
|
7. Fasteners installed backwards or thru two
pieces that are threaded (i.e. using nuts on the wheel attachment fasteners) |
|
8. Threaded holes with less than 5 threads of
engagement (especially for set screws) |
|
9. Not using proper fasteners for attaching 1/8″
or thinner parts (i.e. sheetmetal) to 80/20 extrusion (regular 1/4-20 x ½”
screws won’t work, you need ¼-20 x 3/8”) |
|
10. Not checking if desired fasteners are commonly stocked
in lab |
|
11. Sheetmetal parts incorrectly made of aluminum
(especially if
it’s going to be welded), or not designing using tabs for easier
manufacturing |
|
12. Improper constraints in CAD model (try to
move stuff around) |
|
13. Failure to use subassemblies and descriptive
part / file names |
Motor Mount & Wheel Hub
Drawing Review [RETURN TO TOC]
Students
are instructed to bring printed copies of these part drawings for critical
review. To be prepared, thoroughly
review the drawings portion of the Detailed
Design Checklist / DR3 Grade Sheet, the Dimensioning
Rules Document, the Motor
Mount, Wheel
Hub, and Sheetmetal Design Guides, and
the DFM
Examples document so we can catch common mistakes. ** NOTE: even if part
drawings look perfect, ask several questions about each to make sure students
didn’t copy an example without understanding; common weaknesses are summarized
in the table below **
|
Common Motor Mount & Wheel Hub
Drawing Weaknesses |
|
1. Improper material type
and thickness (3/16” thick and 2” diameter aluminum are typical for these parts) |
|
2. Complex geometry or design features like curves and
fillets, or mirror image parts |
|
3. Incorrect tap drill and
clearance hole sizes (i.e. not using Tap Drill Chart) |
|
4. Inappropriate tolerances for important and
non-important features |
|
5. Incorrect clearance hole size for Denso motor
shaft (requires ¾” hole) |
|
6. Designing a press fits on motor hubs, or
designing close fit motor shaft clearance fits with more than 0.002″
allowance |
|
7. Incorrect geometry for Entstort motor
hub or Cytron wheel hub (these designs
work and students should understand and use them) |
|
8. Incorrect surface finish specs (finishing
unimportant surfs, not finishing important ones) |
|
9. Failure to use course drawing template |
|
10. Inconsistent or missing drawing notes |
|
11. General drawing clarity / quality (i.e. is it
neat and concise); black (not gray) lines; SW watermark in page border (if
present at all) |
Design
Report 3 Grading Guidelines / Resources [RETURN
TO TOC]
Grading for DR3 is broken down
into three stages:
Week Before DR3 First Submission / Design Review [RETURN TO TOC]
1.
Closely review the DFM
Examples document for examples of poorly designed and detailed parts.
2.
Closely review the Final Design
Checklist before your
first lab.
3.
Complete a Final Design
Checklist for your
group’s design during lab.
DR3 First Submission / Design Review [RETURN TO TOC]
1.
Review the Design
Review Keynotes. Our job during the design
review is to critically review each group’s complete DR3 to ensure they have
everything necessary to construct their designs using lab resources. Stated another way: could another group
correctly manufacture and assemble your group’s complete design without further
communication beyond the material submitted in DR3? Please make notes on the report pages so we
know what suggestions you made to the group and which they heeded in next
week’s DR3 resubmission. But do NOT take
notes for your group, they should all write down everything you say.
2. Closely review the Assembly
drawings and BOM example the
students are to follow, as well as the NEW Assembly
Drawing Organization and Dimensioning document the students are given
for guidance.
3.
Closely
review the Dimensioning
Rules document so you can quickly catch these types of errors.
4.
Closely review the DFM
Examples document for examples of poorly designed and detailed parts.
5.
Closely review the Common
Design Review Mistakes document, which is a great way to prepare for
the design review.
6.
Closely review the Detailed Design (DR3) Checklist.
7. Complete a Detailed Design (DR3) Checklist
during lab and assign a grade. If a RARE
circumstance occurs or this is your first semester grading, you are welcome to
hold onto the group’s DR3 for up to 24 hours, but at that point you must have
it returned and e-mail them informing them.
DR3 Resubmission [RETURN
TO TOC]
1. Review the Common
Design Review Mistakes document one more time.
2. Complete another Detailed Design
(DR3) Checklist and assign a grade.
3. Thoroughly read the DR3 / 3R
Grading Rubric and DR3 Grade Sheet
BEFORE beginning grading.
4. Please do your best to return the graded DR3R to my office within 72 hours so I can review
and normalize all the report grading. As
with DR1, I will update the DR
Grading Status Google Sheet linked in the DRT letting your students know when their DR3R is
ready for pickup.
Design Report 4 Grading Guidelines / Resources [RETURN
TO TOC]
This is by far the easiest report
of the semester to grade!
1. Read the DR4 Grading Rubric and DR4 Grade Sheet
BEFORE beginning grading.
2. Skim the material while completing the grade
sheet. The students have worked very
hard up to this point, so be lenient with deductions. I typically spend < 15min on each group’s
DR4.