brief 1: Paper Circuit (rubric), physcpu1

	A	B	C	D	E	F
1	brief 1: Paper Circuit
2	Assessment Scale	0	1	2	3	4
3	Assessment Scale	N/A	Ineffective	Progressing	Effective	Highly Effective
4	Corresponding Detailed Descriptions	Did not demonstrate, either through absence or serious deficiencies, the described criteria.	Struggles to demonstrate practices described in the key grading criteria.	Performs within the described key grading criteria. Showing some improvement over time.	Consistently demonstrates competency regarding the practices described in the key grading criteria.	Consistently innovative, integrated, nuanced, and sophisticated demonstration of elements in the key grading criteria.
5	Proposal Drafts/Possible Revisions: Did the student complete and submit the draft proposal, final proposal, and 10 possible revisions document? Do the differences between the contents of the draft and final proposal reflect the iterations the student went through to complete the prototype? Did the student use the 10 possible revisions process as a component of their ideation and is this indicated in the final prototype proposal?	No proposals or revisions were delivered	Some, but not all, of the proposals/revisions were turned in. The formats for both were not followed	The prototype proposals were turned in on time but were vague and did not show any evidence of forward development towards completion of the project. 10 possible revisions are not mentioned in proposal	The prototype proposals and 10 possible revisions were turned in on time and provide a written record of the progression of the project from start to finish.	The prototype proposals and 10 possible revisions document, together, illustrate the development of the project.
6	ESP32: how resolved is the functionality of this prototype? Does it work?	No ESP32 used	No functional prototype produced	Script runs but is incredibly unstable	Script runs and allows for simple interaction without issue	The functionality of this project works so well that the focus is exclusively on the interaction and content
7	Interaction: does the prototype allow for user input? does the interaction allow a person to create a significant change to the actions of the prototype?	Prototype is not interactive	User triggers single output	User toggles between two identical outputs	User toggles between two different types of (embedded/redesigned) outputs	User is able to explore the prototype with minimal explanation, the overall experience communicates the larger idea represented by the prototype effectively
8	digital input / paper button: does the prototype use a digital input? has the button been redesigned seamlessly fit into the prototype? does the design of the button and the actuation required for interaction productively enhance the experience of the prototype?	Prototype does not have any inputs	Prototype uses one conventional button on a breadboard, button is not hidden or redesigned to seamlessly fit into prototype	Prototype uses two pieces of cardboard with aluminum tape to act as a button, there is no productive coordination between the design of the Paper button and the rest of the prototype	Prototype uses two pieces of cardboard with aluminum tape to act as a button. The paper button has been shaped/designed roughly but otherwise does not appear to correspond to the rest of the prototype	Prototype features a unique redesign of a button, allowing for seamless user interaction that helps the user stay in the mindset/atmosphere of the prototype
9	Documentation: Did the student document the final version of their prototype?	No documentation of the final version	Final documentation does not show functionality of the prototype clearly, difficult to understand what is happening	Simple documentation of final version that requires verbal description in order to be comprehensible	Documentation clearly illustrates functionality of prototype and requires minimal additional verbal description	Documentation clearly presents the development of the prototype and leads to a productive discussion inspired by the contents of the Media and their presentation
10	Originality: How unique is the student's idea and its implementation both conceptually and technologically?	This project is simply a copy of our lab note examples, written by someone else, or from another class	The project is original not in its technological implementation but only in its accompanimental verbal description.	The project is a good representation of the individual's interests conceptually but is not developed further, technologically, than in-class lab examples.	The project represents a unique perspective towards the brief via hardware and software implementation, as well as a satisfying and unique conceptual viewpoint.	The project exemplifies the brief while maintaining a unique point of view. The overall experience with the project is unique and memorable.