Author: cis-dev1
Company: Centre for Instructional Support

Team Skills

| Levels of Achievement
| Excellent (A) 4 points | Good (B) 3 points | Needs Improvement (C, D) 2 points | Unacceptable (F) 1 point
Group functioning | The group functions well. Peer review indicates good distribution of effort. All members are challenged and feel their contributions are valued. | The group functions fairly well. Some people in the group believe they are working harder (or less hard) than others, but everyone is contributing. | The group is still functioning, but each individual is doing his/her own work and ignoring the efforts of others. There are frequent episodes where one person's design will not fit with another's due to lack of communication. | The group functions poorly. All work is the product of individual efforts.
Regularity and productivity of meetings | The group meets regularly and the meetings are productive. | The group meets regularly, but meetings are not as productive as they could be. Some members are not prepared. | The group meets irregularly. Meetings are not as productive as they could be because several members are not prepared. | The group does not meet regularly, and when it does, some members are absent and no one is prepared.
Use of group problem-solving techniques | The group makes frequent use of brainstorming and group problem-solving techniques and documents the effect of these sessions. | The group uses brain- storming and group problem-solving techniques but does not always document the effect of these sessions. | Some attempt to use group problem-solving techniques is observed, but decisions are not based on results of problem-solving sessions. | No attempt to use group problem-solving techniques is made. Meetings are worthless.

Written Communication 

| Levels of Achievement
| Excellent (A) 4 points | Good (B) 3 points | Needs Improvement (C, D) 2 points | Unacceptable (F) 1 point
Organization | Written work is well organized and easy to understand. | The organization is generally good, but some parts seem out of place. | The organization is unclear. | The report is disorganized to the extent that it pre- vents understanding of content.
Definition of terms | All new terms are defined. | Some terms are used without definition. | Many terms are used but not defined. | Terms are used without definition to the extent that understanding is inhibited.
Integration of writing styles | The team developed a writing style that is uniform throughout the report. There is no indication that the report involved multiple authors. | There is some indication of multiple authors (e.g., different fonts, different paper, etc.). | There is ample indication of multiple authors (e.g., different fonts, different paper, etc.). | Report is clearly the work of multiple authors with different writing styles, margins, printer fonts, and paper types.
Grammar | The work has been thoroughly spell-checked and proofread by every- one in the group. | There are a few spelling and grammatical errors. | There is more than one spelling or grammatical error per page. | There are frequent misspelled words and serious grammatical errors, indicating that time was not taken to spell-check and proofread.
Use of appendices | Information is appropriately placed in either the main text or an appendix. Appendices are documented and referenced in the text. | Information is appropriately placed in either the main text or an appendix. Documentation and referencing in text are some- what incomplete. | There is some misplacement of information in the text vs. the appendix. Appendices are poorly documented and referenced in text. | Considerable amount of material is misplaced. Appendices are not documented or referenced in text.

Oral Communication 

| Levels of Achievement
| Excellent (A) 4 points | Good (B) 3 points | Needs Improvement (C, D) 2 points | Unacceptable (F) 1 point
Interest/ organization | Design presentation is clear, interesting, and well organized. It starts and ends well. | The design presentation is interesting, but some points are unclear. The introduction and/ or conclusion are weak. | The design presentation has some interesting points but is difficult to follow. Either the introduction or conclusion is missing. | The design presentation is hard to follow and poorly organized. It appears to be off-the-cuff. There is no introduction or conclusion.
Visual aids | Visual aids are used frequently. They are easy to read and understand, and they are of professional quality. | Visual aids are good, but a few are sloppy or difficult to read. | Most visual aids are sloppy and hard to read | There are too few visual aids, and those used are carelessly prepared.
Length | The presentation is within the assigned time limits. | The presentation is too short or too long by two minutes or more. | The presentation is too short or too long by five minutes or more. | The presentation is too short or too long by ten minutes or more.

Engineering 
analysis

Engineering analysis is presented with sufficient detail to be understood, but not so that it insults the audience.

Engineering analysis is poorly explained or so detailed that the audience falls sleep.

Engineering analysis consists of trivial calculations and is poorly explained.

No engineering analysis is presented.