Fermilab LInC Online

wenever48.gif (2996 bytes)

Building Design Rubric


Memo to Students Needs Assessment Greenhouse Basics Building Design Funding
Project Approval Construction Leadership Student Assessment General Resources
f1_6.gif (895 bytes)f1_15.gif (891 bytes)f1_4.gif (892 bytes)f1_14.gif (889 bytes)Rubricsf1_14.gif (889 bytes)f1_4.gif (892 bytes)f1_15.gif (891 bytes)f1_6.gif (895 bytes)
Needs Assessment
Greenhouse Basics
Building Design Funding Project Approval Leadership



The project score for the Building Design component completed by the Physical Science students and the Construction Technology students will be computed in the following manner.




Max. Possible
Research Teacher - 20
Oral Presentation Peers - 20
Oral Presentation Teacher - 20
Written Summary Teacher - 10
Plan Teacher - 15
Model Teacher - 15

Scoring Guide:


20 Has utilized information from at least 10 resources reflecting at least 4 different types of sources (web pages, list serves, e-mail, chat, ftp, interviews, books, magazines, etc.). Resources provide solid information to prepare an outstanding presentation. Sources are documented in proper MLA format.
16 Has utilized information from at least 8 resources reflecting at least 3 different types of sources. Resources provide adequate information to prepare a quality presentation. Sources are documented in MLA format although there may be minor formatting errors
12 Has utilized information from at least 6 resources reflecting at least 3 different types of sources. Information obtained was the minimal necessary to prepare an adequate presentation. All sources documented, but may not follow MLA format.
8 Has utilized information from at least 4 resources reflecting at least 2 different types of sources. Further information (quality and/or quantity) would have been required to prepare an adequate presentation. Source documentation was incomplete.
4 Has utilized information from at least two different resources, but they may be of the same type. Information gathered is clearly insufficient to prepare presentation. Documentation of information is incomplete or missing.
0 No Sources


Oral Presentation

When the oral presentation is made, it will be evaluated by both students and teachers using the Oral Presentation Evaluation Form. The average score (from the students or teachers) will be converted from a percentage into a numerical score (i.e. 80% = 16 out of 20)

Written Summary

Either before, during, or after the oral presentation; participants should receive a written summary of the presentation. This summary could be in a variety of formats; for example, you might choose to prepare and print out copies of webpages, or use the options to print out PowerPoint slides or an outline. It could also take the format of a simple word processing document. The purpose of this document is to serve as a reference for the funding and project approval components of the Greenhouse project.

10 Written summary is exemplary. It summarizes the oral presentation effectively and serves as an outstanding reference to be used in preparing the subsequent portions of this project. The format chosen enhances users ability to locate information quickly and efficiently. Presentation is clear, concise and neat.
8 Written summary is adequate to provide necessary information for subsequent project components.
6 Written summary provides the minimal information needed for further project development. Members of subsequent groups may need to request further clarification from the group creating the document in order to proceed with their own work.
4 Written summary is incomplete. There are some positive characteristics, but either due to lack of content or presentation style it is ineffective as a resource for further project development. Users will need to do further research or contact the responsible group to obtain some of the missing pieces.
2 Written summary is inadequate. There is a lack of sufficient content to facilitate further development of project components. Information is unorganized or sloppily presented.
0 No written summary provided.


The quality of the plan (proposed building design) will have a major impact on the quality of the oral presentation as it would be difficult to conduct an excellent presentation justifying a plan that doesn't make sense.   By the same token, the quality of the instructors' understanding of the plan will be affected by the caliber of the oral presentation.  However, for this portion of the project grade, an attempt will be made to separate the presentation process from the design process and simply evaluate the quality of the design or plan chosen.  In particular, we will be looking for evidence that the plan is well thought out and adequate justification is provided for each of the decisions that have been made in terms of size, shape, location, construction materials, HVAC systems, plumbing, electrical, interior equipment, and the assembly of all these components into a working design.  Since each of the decisions that are made will impact overall cost of the project, as well as the greenhouse's usefulness within the curriculum, it is imperative that they be given adequate consideration.

15 Plan is extremely well thought out in terms of all factors described above.  Justification is provided and makes sense.  Decisions that have been made work together to create a finished design that meets or exceeds the requirements of the customer (science department & school board).   This plan is "ready to build" right now.
12 This plan would produce a very good greenhouse.  It may have a few features that require further justification or some decisions that should be rethought or there may be some pieces that don't quite seem to fit together.  If it were to be built however, the customer would be very satisfied with the result.
9 This plan would produce an adequate greenhouse.  It meets the requirements of the customer, but may have some design "flaws" which limit its usefulness.  Although it could be built and would work, it would probably have been better to revise the design to make it more useful.  This score could also be assigned for an excellent plan if no justification of the decisions that have been made is provided.
6 This plan is unacceptable.   It could not be constructed as it has serious design flaws, or if it was constructed, the result would be inadequate to meet the requirements of the customer.
3 Plan is incomplete.  Many decisions have either not been made or have been made without adequate consideration.   Justification of decisions, if provided at all are incomplete or unreasonable.
0 No plan submitted.


The scale model that is to be created as part of this component will have a major impact on the "selling" of this concept to the customer.  Many people have a hard time visualizing what something will look like from a two dimensional drawing or blueprint, but can readily grasp it from a three dimensional model.  It is important that the model be scaled correctly and be shown located "on-site."  The materials chosen to construct the model should be representative of the actual plan, and the model should convey information accurately.   In addition, it should be aesthetically pleasing. Each of these components will be evaluated using a 0-3 scale, where:

3 Represents excellence
2 Adequacy--meets the standard
1 Inadequate
0 Not present
  3 2 1 0
Accurate Scaling - - - -
Appropriate Material Choices - - - -
Accurately Conveys Plan/Blueprint - - - -
Aesthetically Pleasing - - - -
Located "on-site" - - - -
Column Totals - - - -
Grand Total  


1890.gif (121 bytes)PRHS Home Page

 1890.gif (121 bytes)LInC Winter 99 Homepage

Created for the Fermilab LInC program sponsored by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Education Office
and Friends of Fermilab, and funded by United States Department of Energy, Illinois State Board of Education,
North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium which is operated by North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory (NCREL), and the National Science Foundation. 

Authors: Ina Ahern, Mardean Badger, and Doug Ross
School: Plymouth Regional High School, Plymouth, NH
Created: April 12, 1999 - Updated: May 04, 1999