Home | Syllabus | Grading | Schedule | Resources

Rubrics

Contents

How It Works

All rubrics are scored on 5-point scales, based on the following grade equivalents:

0 1 2 3 4 4.5 5
F D C B A- A A+

Depending on the assessment item, your rubric may be scored by one or more members of the teaching team. In many group settings, each member of the teaching team is assigned a subset of students to grade. In such cases, we rotate which students are graded by which teaching team members, to ensure fairness.

To compute your numerical grade based on rubric scores, we will first calculate the mean score across dimensions, round to one decimal point, and then convert the score to a percentage based on the following conversion table:

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0
0% 50% 60% 70% 80% 85% 100%

Some examples of how this works:

In general if you are not present for a class (or the part thereof) where a rubric is used, your grade will be zero, unless you asked for and were granted an exception.

Case Discussion Rubric

Contributions to case discussions are evaluated as follows:

Preparation

Score Criteria
5 Has analyzed case exceptionally well, relating it to readings and other material (e.g., readings, course material, discussions, experiences, etc.).
4 Has read the case very well, and is prepared to provide thoughtful analysis based on case material and some other material.
3 Has read the case and prepared some analyses or interpretations.
2 Has read the case and demonstrates understanding of the topic.
1 Demonstrates some knowledge of of the case, likely from skimming rather than reading deeply.
0 No evidence of having read the case.

Analysis

Score Criteria
5 Demonstrates exceptional analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Puts together pieces of the discussion to develop new approaches that take the class further.
4 Demonstrates very good analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation. Connects across parts of the case, and connects case material to other class material or outside information.
3 Demonstrates some analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation. Makes sensible interpretations based on material presented in the case.
2 Demonstrates a basic understanding of the case.
1 Contributions are off-topic or do not relate to the case in a sensible way.
0 Little to no analysis provided.

Participation

Score Criteria
5 Contributes actively; builds productively off contributions of others; respects “air time” and does not dominate.
4 Contributes actively and/or builds off contributions of others; respects “air time” and does not dominate.
3 Contributes at least once with relevant information, and/or builds off contributions of others. Shows good respect for “air time”.
2 Minimal contributions; contributions are not particularly helpful or on topic.
1 Contributes, but dominates conversation and does not respect “air time”; interrupts and/or jumps in without raising hand.
0 Check for pulse.

Guest Presenter Rubric

This is scored similarly to case discussions, except that there is no preparation dimension since in general, guests will not provide preparatory material.

Analysis

Score Criteria
5 Asks questions or provides interpretations that demonstrate exceptional analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Puts together pieces of the discussion to develop new approaches that take the class further.
4 Asks questions or provides interpretations that demonstrate very good analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation. Connects guest presenter’s material to other class material or outside information.
3 Asks questions or provides interpretations that demonstrate some analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation. Asks good question(s) based on the presenter’s material.
2 Asks questions that demonstrate having been awake and attentive during the presentation.
1 Contributions are off-topic or do not relate to the presentation in a sensible way.
0 Little to no contribution to the discussion.

Participation

Score Criteria
5 Contributes actively; builds productively off contributions of others and/or the guest; respects “air time” and does not dominate.
4 Contributes actively and/or builds off contributions of others and/or the guest; respects “air time” and does not dominate.
4 Contributes at least once with relevant information, and/or builds off contributions of others and/or the guest. Shows good respect for “air time”.
2 Minimal contributions; contributions are not particularly helpful or on topic.
1 Contributes, but dominates conversation and does not respect “air time”; interrupts and/or jumps in without raising hand.
0 Check for pulse.

Team Peer Review Rubric

At the end of each term’s major project (Design Sprint in Fall; Business Model in Winter), team members review each others’ contributions on five dimensions:

  1. Participation
  2. Preparation
  3. Communication
  4. Collaboration
  5. Quality

Each dimension is rated on a 5-point scale:

0 1 2 3 4 5
Leeroy Jenkins Barely Involved Somewhat Helpful Solid Contributor Above-Average Effort Strong Leadership

Design Project Rubric

This is used to grade the final design project presentations in Fall term. As noted below, one criterion is scored individually, but the rest are scored for the team as a whole. This is meant to incentivize teams to work together to support each other in developing delivering the best presentation. However, individual team members could receive a higher or lower grade than team mates, in exceptional circumstances (e.g., when there is evidence that effort or preparation were very different among team members).

Dimensions:

  1. Verbal Communication (scored individually)
  2. Visual Presentation (scored as team)
  3. Team Cohesion (scored as team)
  4. Design Process Quality (scored as team)

Verbal Communication

Score Criteria
5 Speech is exceptionally clear and easy to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is particularly dynamic without seeming excessive or inappropriate to the topic and audience. Points are presented in logical order and are exceptionally easy to follow.
4 Speech is clear and easy to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is appropriately dynamic. Points are presented in logical order and are easy to follow.
3 Speech is mostly clear and easy to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is somewhat dynamic. Points are presented in generally logical order and are mostly easy to follow.
2 Speech is frequently unclear and/or hard to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is quite flat. Points are hard to follow and logical flow is limited.
1 Speech is mostly unclear and/or hard to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is very flat/monotone. Points are hard to follow and logical flow is lacking.

Visual Presentation

Score Criteria
5 Visual presentation is exceptional in every way. Visuals are professional and consistent in appearance. Text is used sparingly and appropriately, relying on narration to convey the details of the message. Graphics and images are exceptionally clear, easily interpreted, and very relevant to supporting the points being made. No errors.
4 Visual presentation is excellent in all or most ways. Visuals are near-professional and generally consistent in appearance. Text is used sparingly and appropriately, relying on narration to convey the details of the message. Graphics and images are clear, easily interpreted, and very relevant to supporting the points being made. No errors.
3 Visual presentation is very good in all or most ways. Visuals are well done and generally consistent in appearance. Text is used reasonably sparingly and appropriately, relying on narration to convey the details of the message. Graphics and images are generally clear, relatively easily interpreted (but may require some explanation), and generally relevant to supporting the points being made. Errors are minimal.
2 Visual presentation is adequate in all or most ways. Visuals are often overly cluttered or distracting, and/or hard to read/interpret. Visuals may be somewhat inconsistent in appearance. Text is over-used, with slides requiring extensive reading that distracts from the narration. Graphics and images are not always clear, hard to interpret, and/or not always relevant to supporting the points being made. A few errors are present.
1 Visual presentation is poor in all or most ways. Visuals are overly cluttered or distracting, and/or hard to read/interpret. Visuals are highly inconsistent in appearance. Text is over-used, with slides requiring extensive reading that distracts from the narration. Graphics and images are generally unclear, hard to interpret, and/or not relevant to supporting the points being made. Many errors are present.

Team Cohesion

Score Criteria
5 Team demonstrates exceptional cohesiveness and cooperation. Members show respect and work off of each other. Team has clearly rehearsed extensively together. Team evidences clear division of labour and leverages individuals’ strengths. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are clear.
4 Team demonstrates high cohesiveness and cooperation. Members show respect and work off of each other. Team has clearly rehearsed together. Team evidences clear division of labour and leverages individuals’ strengths. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are clear.
3 Team demonstrates some cohesiveness and cooperation. Members show respect and work off of each other, at least some of the time. Evidence of team rehearsal is weak. Team evidences some division of labour. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are not entirely clear.
2 Team demonstrates limited cohesiveness and cooperation. Limited evidence of respect for other team members, or cooperation. Team members appear to have prepared individually with little to no coordination. Team evidences some division of labour. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are not clear.
1 Team demonstrates poor cohesiveness and cooperation. Limited evidence of respect for other team members, or cooperation. Team members appear to have prepared individually (or not at all) with little to no coordination. Unclear division of labour. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are not clear.

Design process quality

Score Criteria
5 Demonstrates exceptionally deep understanding and execution of the human-centered design process. The following are exceptionally well defined, explained, and validated with evidence: customer/beneficiary; problem; solution; problem-solution fit; prototype; hypotheses for prototype test; results of prototype test; proposed next steps.
4 Demonstrates very good understanding and execution of the human-centered design process. The following are all well defined, explained, and validated with evidence: customer/beneficiary; problem; solution; problem-solution fit; prototype; hypotheses for prototype test; results of prototype test; proposed next steps.
3 Demonstrates good understanding and execution of the human-centered design process. The following are mostly well defined, explained, and validated with evidence: customer/beneficiary; problem; solution; problem-solution fit; prototype; hypotheses for prototype test; results of prototype test; proposed next steps.
2 Demonstrates adequate understanding and execution of the human-centered design process. The following are sometimes defined, explained, and validated with evidence: customer/beneficiary; problem; solution; problem-solution fit; prototype; hypotheses for prototype test; results of prototype test; proposed next steps.
1 Demonstrates limited understanding and execution of the human-centered design process. The following are occasionally defined, explained, and/or validated with evidence: customer/beneficiary; problem; solution; problem-solution fit; prototype; hypotheses for prototype test; results of prototype test; proposed next steps.

Weekly Updates and Lessons Learned Rubric

Dimensions:

  1. Verbal Communication (scored individually)
  2. Visual Presentation (scored as team)
  3. Team Cohesion (scored as team)
  4. Business Model Quality (scored as team)
  5. (for final presentation only) Lessons Learned (scored individually)

Verbal Communication

Score Criteria
5 Speech is exceptionally clear and easy to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is particularly dynamic without seeming excessive or inappropriate to the topic and audience. Points are presented in logical order and are exceptionally easy to follow.
4 Speech is clear and easy to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is appropriately dynamic. Points are presented in logical order and are easy to follow.
3 Speech is mostly clear and easy to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is somewhat dynamic. Points are presented in generally logical order and are mostly easy to follow.
2 Speech is frequently unclear and/or hard to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is quite flat. Points are hard to follow and logical flow is limited.
1 Speech is mostly unclear and/or hard to understand (within reasonable constraints, such as accent or physical limitations). Intonation is very flat/monotone. Points are hard to follow and logical flow is lacking.

Visual Presentation

Score Criteria
5 Visual presentation is exceptional in every way. Visuals are professional and consistent in appearance. Text is used sparingly and appropriately, relying on narration to convey the details of the message. Graphics and images are exceptionally clear, easily interpreted, and very relevant to supporting the points being made. No errors.
4 Visual presentation is excellent in all or most ways. Visuals are near-professional and generally consistent in appearance. Text is used sparingly and appropriately, relying on narration to convey the details of the message. Graphics and images are clear, easily interpreted, and very relevant to supporting the points being made. No errors.
3 Visual presentation is very good in all or most ways. Visuals are well done and generally consistent in appearance. Text is used reasonably sparingly and appropriately, relying on narration to convey the details of the message. Graphics and images are generally clear, relatively easily interpreted (but may require some explanation), and generally relevant to supporting the points being made. Errors are minimal.
2 Visual presentation is adequate in all or most ways. Visuals are often overly cluttered or distracting, and/or hard to read/interpret. Visuals may be somewhat inconsistent in appearance. Text is over-used, with slides requiring extensive reading that distracts from the narration. Graphics and images are not always clear, hard to interpret, and/or not always relevant to supporting the points being made. A few errors are present.
1 Visual presentation is poor in all or most ways. Visuals are overly cluttered or distracting, and/or hard to read/interpret. Visuals are highly inconsistent in appearance. Text is over-used, with slides requiring extensive reading that distracts from the narration. Graphics and images are generally unclear, hard to interpret, and/or not relevant to supporting the points being made. Many errors are present.

Team Cohesion

Score Criteria
5 Team demonstrates exceptional cohesiveness and cooperation. Members show respect and work off of each other. Team has clearly rehearsed extensively together. Team evidences clear division of labour and leverages individuals’ strengths. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are clear.
4 Team demonstrates high cohesiveness and cooperation. Members show respect and work off of each other. Team has clearly rehearsed together. Team evidences clear division of labour and leverages individuals’ strengths. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are clear.
3 Team demonstrates some cohesiveness and cooperation. Members show respect and work off of each other, at least some of the time. Evidence of team rehearsal is weak. Team evidences some division of labour. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are not entirely clear.
2 Team demonstrates limited cohesiveness and cooperation. Limited evidence of respect for other team members, or cooperation. Team members appear to have prepared individually with little to no coordination. Team evidences some division of labour. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are not clear.
1 Team demonstrates poor cohesiveness and cooperation. Limited evidence of respect for other team members, or cooperation. Team members appear to have prepared individually (or not at all) with little to no coordination. Unclear division of labour. Roles and contributions of each team member to the work and presentation are not clear.

Business Model Quality

Score Criteria
5 Demonstrates exceptionally deep understanding of each cell of the BMC, and how cells relate to each other. BMC contents are framed in terms of hypotheses or evidence, as appropriate. Hypotheses/validated statements in each cell are clearly linked to a particular customer segment. Exceptional degree of customer discovery is evident and clearly documented. Team is able to explain contents of each cell of their BMC, present evidence in support of the contents, and defend these contents well on the basis of evidence and logic. Shows exceptional evidence of having integrated information from assigned videos and readings into BMC.
4 Demonstrates deep understanding of each cell of the BMC, and how cells relate to each other. BMC contents are framed in terms of hypotheses or evidence, as appropriate. Hypotheses/validated statements in each cell are clearly linked to a particular customer segment. Expected degree of customer discovery is evident and clearly documented. Team is able to explain contents of each cell of their BMC, present evidence in support of the contents, and defend these contents on the basis of evidence and logic. Shows evidence of having integrated information from assigned videos and readings into BMC.
3 Demonstrates some understanding of each cell of the BMC, and how cells relate to each other. BMC contents are appropriate for the cells they are in, and hypotheses can be distinguished from evidence. Hypotheses/statements in each cell can be linked to a particular customer segment. Extent of customer discovery interviews is unclear or lower than expected. Team is able to explain contents of each cell of their BMC, but may have limited evidence in support of contents and/or be unable to convincingly defend these contents. Show limited evidence of having integrated information from assigned videos and readings into BMC.
2 Demonstrates limited understanding of each cell of the BMC, and how cells relate to each other. BMC contents are appropriate to the cells they are in, but hypotheses and evidence are not clearly distinguished. Some hypotheses/statements in each cell can be linked to a particular customer segment. Extent of customer discovery is unclear or well below expectations. Demonstrates limited ability to explain the contents of their BMC, and/or defend these contents.
1 Demonstrates limited understanding of each cell of the BMC, and how cells relate to each other. BMC contents are not appropriate to the cells they are in. Hypotheses and evidence are not clearly distinguished. Few hypotheses/statements in each cell can be linked to a particular customer segment. Extent of customer discovery is unclear or very far below expectations. Demonstrates limited to no ability to explain the contents of their BMC, and/or defend these contents. Shows little or no evidence of having integrated information from assigned videos and readings into BMC, and/or information is not used appropriately.

Lessons Learned

(For final Lessons Learned presentation only)

Score Criteria
5 Exceptional articulation of lessons learned, spanning the entire course (both terms). Evidence backs up statements of learning. Exceptional examples are provided. Unexpected but powerful connections across topics of the course and outside material are presented.
4 Clear articulation of lessons learned, spanning most of the entire course (both terms). Evidence generally backs up statements of learning. Examples are provided. Connections across topics of the course and outside material are presented.
3 Good articulation of lessons learned, spanning much of the course (including topics from both terms). Some evidence backs up statements of learning. Some examples are provided. Connections across topics of the course and outside material are limited.
2 Adequate articulation of lessons learned, spanning multiple course topics. Limited evidence backs up statements of learning. Few examples are provided. Connections across topics of the course and outside material are lacking.
1 Poor articulation of lessons learned, covering few course topics. Evidence not presented to support statements of learning. Examples are not provided. Connections across topics of the course and outside material are absent.