Go to Collaborative Learning Go to FLAG Home Go to Search
Go to Learning Through Technology Go to Site Map
Go to Who We Are
Go to College Level One Home
Go to Introduction Go to Assessment Primer Go to Matching CATs to Goals Go to Classroom Assessment Techniques Go To Tools Go to Resources


Go to Tools overview
Go to Tool search engine
Go to Tools sorted by discipline
Go to Tools sorted by technique


Relevant CAT: Scoring Rubrics

Discipline: Engineering

Description:
The "Computer Modeling" checklist is used for computer modeling assignments. This checklist has five major sections. Section I concerns the correctness of the model. Section II defines what is expected when charts are present. Section III states how Spreadsheet models must be presented. Section IV is concerned with the written responses given to the questions posed in the assignment. And finally, Section V is a modified version of the" Presentation Sandwich" checklist.

The "Presentation Sandwich" checklist is the mnemonic used in an introductory engineering course to describe the presentation requirements for all technical work. The checklist has two major sections: Section I concerns the Presentation Sandwich itself and Section II concerns Graphical Work. Section I has three sub-sections (A, B, and C), one concerning Problem Context, one concerning the technical work (i.e., the "sandwich filling"), and one concerning the Discussion. Students who do not meet all of the yes/no are required to re-submit their work.

The checklist is provided to students prior to their assignment. Both checklists show that to Meet Expectations on a work product the answer to all sections on the checklist must be Yes; a single No for a section means that some Expected Requirement is missing and the work is not complete. Space is left for students demonstrating exemplary work.

Tool:
Evaluation of ___________________________ ‘s Work

Work Product Being Evaluated :________________________________________.

The Work Product (Exceeds or Meets Expectations, Needs Improvements)

Evaluated by:___________________________________.

The following checklist can be used to determine if the work product Exceeds expectations, Meets expectations, or Needs Improvement. Meeting expectations requires meeting or exceeding expectations for all.htmlects of the assignment. This checklist comes directly from the material in Part I of Section J in the Orange Workbook.

Any work products that Need Improvement MUST be submitted by the date shown in the Calendar for your section. The ORIGINAL work product and THIS checklist MUST be attached as the cover sheet to the improved work products. Please put a checkmark next to the checklist item that you have improved.

I. Specific Requirements (Exceeds or Meets expectations, Needs Improvement)
(meeting expectations requires a YES for all of the following items)
For the specific requirements, the following items must all be checked:

  1. Was the model tested, validated, or calibrated? (YES, NO)
  2. Are the results presented in the work products complete and correct? (YES, NO)

Comments if Specific Requirements Exceed Expectations or Need Improvement





II. Chart Requirements (Exceeds or Meets expectations, Needs Improvement)
(meeting expectations requires a YES for all of the following items N.B. as specified in the Tutorial)
For all of the charts in the work product, the following items must all be checked:

  1. If you found the chart in the middle of the street, would you understand it? (YES, NO)
  2. If the chart were reproduced, would it still be readable? (YES, NO)
  3. Do both axes have descriptive titles (N.B. not a single letter) which include units? (YES, NO)
  4. Are there labeled divisions (text or numbers) on the axes? (YES, NO)
  5. Are the "values" for the axes at the origin of the chart clear? (YES, NO)
  6. Is the dependent variable (item measured or predicted) on the vertical axis? (YES, NO)
  7. Is there an appropriate, descriptive title? (YES, NO)
  8. If the variables are presented in the chart's title, is the dependent variable mentioned first? (YES, NO)
  9. If there is more than one chart line, is there a descriptive legend? (YES, NO)
  10. Are the data points shown? (YES, NO)

Comments if Charts Exceed Expectations or Need Improvement




III. Spreadsheet Requirements (Exceeds or Meets expectations, Needs Improvement)
(meeting expectations requires a YES for all of the following items)
For the spreadsheets in the work product, the following items must all be checked:

  1. Is the student's name and team number in a cell or text box on the spreadsheet? (YES, NO)
  2. Are the data entry and calculation areas separate? (YES, NO)
  3. Are the data, or "design constants or parameters", in one area or block of contiguous cells (i.e., sequential rows in a few columns, or sequential columns in a few rows).? (YES, NO)
  4. Have the numerical values of the "design constants or parameters" been labeled in adjacent cells? (YES, NO)
  5. Are all columns and rows labeled? (YES, NO)
  6. Has cell formatting been used to improve the appearance and presentation of the model? (YES, NO)
  7. Is the number of significant figures displayed appropriate for all of the numerical values? (N.B. this does NOT refer to the accuracy of the numerical values used in the calculations!) (YES, NO)
  8. Was a print out of the formulas in the spreadsheet included in the work product? (YES, NO)
  9. Are cell references used rather than numerical values for "design constants or parameters" in the formulae? (YES, NO)
  10. Are large or complex calculations separated, parsed, or decomposed into a set of smaller or simpler calculations? (YES, NO)
  11. Are the smaller or simpler calculations in adjacent or contiguous cells in the sheet? (YES, NO)

Comments if Spreadsheet Exceeds Expectations or Needs Improvement



IV. Written Response Requirements (Exceeds or Meets expectations, Needs Improvement)
(meeting expectations requires a YES for all of the following items)
For the written responses, the following items must all be checked:

  1. Was the response presented in complete sentences? Definitions (YES, NO)
  2. Was the response grammatically correct? Definitions (YES, NO)
  3. Was the spelling correct (i.e., was the response spell checked)? Definitions (YES, NO)
  4. Was a word processor or text insertion used to present the response? Definitions (YES, NO)
  5. Was the response constructed such that another person could deduce the question from the response; alternatively, was the Q: question followed by A: answer construct used?
  6. Did the response include the page number where the question was posed?

Comments if the Written Response Exceeds Expectations or Needs Improvement.



V. The Presentation Sandwich (Exceeds or Meets expectations, Needs Improvement)
(meeting expectations requires meeting or exceeding expectations for A, B, and C)

  1. The first slice of bread - Problem Context ( M or E expectations, Needs Improvement)
    For the context requirement, at LEAST ONE of the following items must be checked:
    1. explains why the work will be done (e.g., "This is a homework assignment on descriptive models from the How To Model It text for the Modeling session.")? (YES, NO), or
    2. tells you what will be accomplished when the work is done (e.g., "After this assignment is completed, I will have demonstrated that I know how to develop and use a descriptive model to represent the process of reading the How To Model It text book.")? (YES, NO)


      To meet expectations you must have answered YES to at LEAST ONE of the questions above. Work products that do not explicitly address the issue of context need improvement.

      Comments if First Slice of Bread Exceeds Expectations or Needs Improvement
  2. The sandwich filling - Charts, Sketches, Process, Work (M or E expectations, Needs Improvement)
    For the assigned work products requirement, the following items must all must be present and checked:
    1. charts, diagrams, or sketches? (YES, NO), and
    2. answers to questions posed in the text? (YES, NO), and
    3. the process used in performing the work, including assumptions? (YES, NO), and
    4. the work done in determining an answer? (YES, NO)
    5. To meet expectations you must have answered YES to all of the previous questions. Work products that fail to have each of these items needs improvement.

      Comments if Sandwich Filling Exceeds Expectations or Needs Improvement
  3. The second slice of bread - Discussion (M or E expectations, Needs Improvement)
    For the discussion requirement, at LEAST ONE of the following items must be checked:
    1. what was learned (e.g., "This type of model requires a large number of trials or iterations for correct results.")? (YES, NO), or
    2. the process used in working the problem (e.g., "First, a plan was developed to attack this problem; the plan included .....")? (YES, NO), or
    3. the correctness of the result (e.g., "My answer to this problem ranges from ... to ... , which is comparable to the answer in the book" of "I used .... to validate my model")? (YES, NO)
    4. To meet expectations you must have answered YES to at LEAST ONE of the previous questions. Work products that do not explicitly discuss the results need improvement.

      Comments if Second Slice of Bread Exceeds Expectations or Needs Improvement

Tool provided courtesy of B. McNeill, L. Bellamy, and V. Burrows.

Authors:

Barry McNeill (Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Arizona State University)

Lynn Bellamy (Chemical Engineering & Student Academic Services, Arizona State University)

Veronica Burrows (Chemical, Biological and Materials Engineering, Arizona State University)

Selected References:

McNeill, B. & Bellamy, L. (1996, July). Assessing Quality in Student Work Projects: The role of Customers and Expectations. Paper presented at the New Approaches to Undergraduate Engineering Education Number VIII, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. http://c.htmlub.eas.asu.edu/mcneill/word_documents/papers/nauee.doc

McNeill, B. & Bellamy, L. (1998, June/July). Assessment For Improvement In The Classroom. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Meeting, Seattle Washington. http://c.htmlub.eas.asu.edu/mcneill/word_documents/papers/asee_summer_98.doc

McNeill, B. & Bellamy, L. (1999). The Articulation Matrix A Tool for Defining and Assessing a Course. Chemical Engineering Education, 33(2). http://c.htmlub.eas.asu.edu/mcneill/word_documents/papers/course_articulation_matrix_version_6.doc

McNeill, B., Bellamy, L. & Burrows, V. (1999). "A Quality Based Assessment Process for Student Work Products." ASEE Journal of Engineering Education, 88(4). http://c.htmlub.eas.asu.edu/mcneill/word_documents/papers/using_checklists_v10.doc


 Go to top of page.


Introduction || Assessment Primer || Matching Goals to CATs || CATs || Tools || Resources
Search || Who We Are || Site Map || Meet the CL-1 Team || WebMaster || Copyright || Download
College Level One (CL-1) Home || Collaborative Learning || FLAG || Learning Through Technology || NISE