A - Design Thinking (methods and toolkits) have been used to identify, plan and implement a comprehensive breadth of relevant research activities to fully understand all aspects of the problem.
Sophisticated and comprehensive analysis of information is synthesised to reveal thorough, original and insightful interpretation. A clear direction has been identified for a successful solution. A thorough and sophisticated set of hierarchically success criteria have been generated which have a clear link to the research analysis. Information has been communicated in a clear, organised and professional way, with full consideration of the intended audience.

B - Design Thinking (methods and toolkits) have been used to identify, plan and implement a breadth of relevant research activities to understand most aspects of the problem.
Comprehensive/good analysis of information is synthesised to reveal original and mostly insightful interpretation. A direction has been identified for a successful solution. A detailed set of success criteria have been generated which mostly links to the research analysis. Criteria have been mostly prioritised. Information has been mostly communicated in a clear, organised and mostly professional way, with some consideration for the intended audience.

C - Design Thinking (methods and toolkits) have somewhat been used to identify, plan and implement relevant research activities to understand some but not all aspects of the problem. Information is presented mostly as facts, with some good analysis and synthesis of information. Some original and insightful interpretation. Direction for a successful solution is either unclear or not stemming from analysis. Superficial and sometimes generic success criteria have been generated with little or no real links to the research analysis. Limited attempt to prioritise success criteria. Information is mostly organised, however, limited consideration has been given to the presentation of the information. Limited consideration for the audience of the information. Or the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to the student's ability. Or the work is incomplete

D - Limited use of Design Thinking (methods and toolkits) used to identify, plan and implement relevant research activities. Research is limited and narrow to enable a full understanding of the problem. Information is taken from source, presented as fact with little analysis and synthesis. Limited original interpretation. No clear direction has been identified, or direction is not a result of research analysis and synthesis. Generic success criteria generated lacking in sufficient detail. No, or limited attempt to prioritise success criteria. An attempt has been made to organise the information, but the presentation is lacking in organisation and structure, No attempt has been made to consider the audience of the information. Or the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to the student's ability. Or the work is incomplete

CREATIVE IDEATION A - A comprehensive combination of breadth, range and/or quantity of initial ideas have been generated. Divergent and creative thinking drawing on many (breadth of) sources of inspiration have been used in a sophisticated way to propose creative solutions. Most proposals have the potential for genuine innovation. The standard of visual communication of design intent is excellent, as it draws on industry standard techniques in all mediums (2D, physical and digital 3D). An iterative design process has been clearly been adopted. Ideas and solutions have been thoroughly tested and a clear design journey is evident. Outward client facing communication is of a professional, commercial standard.

B - A good combination of breadth, range and/or quantity of initial ideas have been generated. Divergent and creative thinking drawing on some sources of inspiration have been used in a good way to propose mostly creative solutions. Some proposals have the potential to be innovative. Standard of visual communication of design intent is high/good, as it draws on industry standard techniques in most mediums (2D, physical and digital 3D). An iterative design process has mostly been adopted. Ideas and solutions have been tested, and a clear design journey is evident in most ideas. Outward client facing communication is of a mostly professional, commercial standard.

C - A satisfactory combination of breadth, range and/or quantity of initial ideas have been generated. Satisfactory/limited use of divergent and creative thinking have been used. Inspiration sources are minimal and used superficially to propose creative solutions. A few proposals might have the potential to be innovative. Standards of visual communication of design intent is sometimes good (but mostly satisfactory) as it draws on industry standard techniques in most mediums (2D, physical and digital 3D), however tends to be inconsistent. A somewhat iterative design process has been used at times, although not consistently enough. Some ideas and solutions have been tested, and a design journey is somewhat evident in some ideas. Outward client facing communication is of a good standard with some attempt at a professional, commercial standard.

D - Limited combination of breadth, range and/or quantity of initial ideas have been generated. Limited use of divergent and creative thinking has been used. Inspiration sources are minimal or not evidenced, or have been used superficially and literally to propose solutions of limited creativity. A minority of proposals show any potential of innovation. Standards of visual communication of design intent is generally of low quality (and sometimes good). Industry standards have mostly been ignored in common mediums (2D, physical and digital 3D). Quality of work is inconsistent. No real use of a 'process' (even less of the iterative element). Testing of ideas is minimal and inconsistent. No clear design journey of most ideas is provided. Outward client facing communication is of poor standard. Or the work is incomplete. Or the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to the student’s ability.

EVALUATIVE DECISION MAKING A - Design journey of all ideas and solutions is clear and communicated effectively. Design options and design decision have been clearly and comprehensively considered, evaluated, synthesised, and reflected upon during all the journey. A sophisticated level of analysis, evaluation and reflection is evident throughout all the design process, which has clearly informed the design journey. The designer has consistently been able to visualise and communicated her/his thinking in a logical, systematic, and creative way.

B - Design journey of most ideas and solutions is mostly clear and communicated well. Design options and design decisions have been mostly considered, evaluated, synthesised, and reflected upon during most of the journey. A good level of analysis, evaluation and reflection is evident throughout most of the design process, which has informed the design journey. The designer has been able to visualise and communicated her/his thinking in a mostly logical, systematic, and creative way

C - Design journey of some ideas and solutions is at times clear and communicated well/satisfactory. Some ideas are presented with no journey. Design options and design decisions have sometimes been considered (although inconsistently) evaluated, synthesised, and reflected upon during parts of the journey. A satisfactory level of analysis, evaluation, and reflection is evident at times during the design process, which at times has informed the design journey. At times, the designer has been able to somewhat visualise and communicate her/his thinking, although at times lacking in a consistent logical, systematic, and creative approach.

D - Poor communication of design journey of most ideas. Minimal and inconsistent effort to discuss, evaluate and reflect upon design options and design decision during the design journey. The level of analysis, evaluation, and reflection (if present at all) during the design journey is poor and superficial. It is unclear how decisions have been made. Communication and visualisation of the designer's thinking is lacking and is inconsistent if present.
Outward client facing communication is of poor standard. Or the work is incomplete. Or the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to the student’s ability.

A - Information is organised and sequenced in a logical manner and skilfully used which makes the presentation cohesive. Language choices are imaginative, memorable and compelling which are used to enhance the presentation. Language is appropriate to the audience. Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation compelling. Speaker appears polished and confident. Sophisticated use of supportive materials (illustrations, statistics, examples) which make appropriate reference to information or analysis that significantly supports the presentation or establishes the presenters credibility/authority on the subject. Central message is compelling (precisely stated, appropriately repeated, memorable, and strongly supported).

B - Information is organised and sequenced in a logical manner which makes the presentation mostly cohesive. Language choices are thoughtful and generally supports the effectiveness of the presentation. Language is appropriate to the audience. Delivery technique (posture, gesture, eye contact and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation interesting and speaker appears comfortable. Supporting materials (illustrations, statistics, examples) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that generally supports the presentation or establishes the presenters credibility/authority on the subject. Central message is clear and consistent with the supporting material.

C - Information is organised and sequenced in a somewhat logical manner. Language choices are mundane and commonplace and partially supports the effectiveness of the presentation. Language is appropriate to the audience. Delivery technique (posture, gesture, eye contact and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation understandable and speaker appears tentative. Supporting materials (illustrations, statistics, examples) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that partially supports the presentation or establishes the presenters credibility/authority on the subject. Central message is basically understandably but is not often repeated and is not memorable.

D - Information is not well organised. Language choices are unclear and minimally support the effectiveness of the presentation. Language is not appropriate to the audience. Delivery technique (posture, gesture, eye contact and vocal expressiveness) detract from the understandability of the presentation and speaker appears uncomfortable. Insufficient supporting materials (illustrations, statistics, examples) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that minimally supports the presentation or establishes the presenters credibility/authority on the subject. Central message is deduced, but is not explicitly stated in the presentation.

DEVELOPMENT & REFINEMENT

A - Sufficient iterative steps have been taken to resolve all issues within the solution. All possible avenues have been explored deeply during the process of development and refinement, resulting in a successful outcome. Testing and feedback from all stakeholders have been an integral and consistent part of the process to inform the decision-making. All aspects (form, function, usability. . .) of the solution have been thoroughly considered within the context and success criteria identified. Commercial manufacturing and market have been fully considered, with suitable outcomes identified. Development and refinement have remained aligned and true to the original intent and identified route for success.

B - An iterative process has been used to resolve most issues within the solution Numerous avenues have been explored; some (but not all) deeply during the process of development and refinement, resulting in a mostly successful outcome. Testing and feedback from most stakeholders have been used at key times to inform most aspects of the decision-making process. Most aspects (form, function, usability . . .) of the solution have been considered (some thoroughly) within the context and success criteria identified. Commercial manufacturing and marketing have been mostly considered, with suitable outcomes identified.
Development and refinement have mostly remained aligned and true to the original intent and identified route for success.

C - A satisfactory iterative process (lacking in quantity) has been used. Some issues are somewhat resolved; however, some issues are still unresolved. Some avenues have been explored; some deeply, but most not enough during the process. This has resulted in a good outcome with some successful elements. Testing and feedback from some stakeholders have been used (sometimes well, but sometimes at the wrong time) to inform some aspects of the decision-making process. Some aspects (form, function, usability. . .) of the solution have been considered (some well) within the context and success criteria identified. Some considerations have been made to commercial manufacturing and marketing of outcomes identified. Development and refinement have somewhat remained aligned true to the original intent and identified route, although some aspects do not.

D - Limited use made of the iterative process of design. Some issues have been resolved, however, more questions than solutions remain. Not enough avenues have been explored during the process to ensure an outcome which can be deemed successful or with successful elements.
Testing has been a minimal and inconsistent part of the process. Decisions are not adequately based on testing and feedback from stakeholders. The development of aspects such as form, function and usability have only superficially been considered either within or without the context and success criteria identified. Commercial manufacturing and marketability have only been given lip service through generic and superficial comments. Original intent and identified route have been mostly ignored or only used superficially within the refinement and development process.

EVALUATIVE DECISION MAKING A - Design journey of all ideas and solutions is clear and communicated effectively. Design options and design decision have been clearly and comprehensively considered, evaluated, synthesised, and reflected upon during all the journey. A sophisticated level of analysis, evaluation and reflection is evident throughout all the design process, which has clearly informed the design journey. The designer has consistently been able to visualise and communicated her/his thinking in a logical, systematic, and creative way.

B - Design journey of most ideas and solutions is mostly clear and communicated well. Design options and design decisions have been mostly considered, evaluated, synthesised, and reflected upon during most of the journey. A good level of analysis, evaluation and reflection is evident throughout most of the design process, which has informed the design journey. The designer has been able to visualise and communicated her/his thinking in a mostly logical, systematic, and creative way

C - Design journey of some ideas and solutions is at times clear and communicated well/satisfactory. Some ideas are presented with no journey. Design options and design decisions have sometimes been considered (although inconsistently) evaluated, synthesised, and reflected upon during parts of the journey. A satisfactory level of analysis, evaluation, and reflection is evident at times during the design process, which at times has informed the design journey. At times, the designer has been able to somewhat visualise and communicate her/his thinking, although at times lacking in a consistent logical, systematic, and creative approach.

D - Poor communication of design journey of most ideas. Minimal and inconsistent effort to discuss, evaluate and reflect upon design options and design decision during the design journey. The level of analysis, evaluation, and reflection (if present at all) during the design journey is poor and superficial. It is unclear how decisions have been made. Communication and visualisation of the designer's thinking is lacking and is inconsistent if present.
Outward client facing communication is of poor standard. Or the work is incomplete. Or the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to the student’s ability.

A - Value and vision of the concept have been convincingly and professionally communicated through effective use of design narrative and storytelling. Information is organised and sequenced logically and skilfully used, which makes the presentation cohesive. Language choices are imaginative, memorable and compelling which are used to enhance the presentation. Language is appropriate to the audience. Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation compelling. The speaker appears polished and confident. Sophisticated use of supportive materials (illustrations, statistics, examples) which make appropriate reference to information or analysis that significantly supports the presentation or establishes the presenter's credibility/authority on the subject. The central message is compelling (precisely stated, appropriately repeated, memorable, and strongly supported).

B - Value and vision of the concept have been clearly and effectively communicated through clear use of design narrative and storytelling. Information is organised and sequenced logically, which makes the presentation mostly cohesive. Language choices are thoughtful and generally supports the effectiveness of the presentation. Language is appropriate to the audience. Delivery technique (posture, gesture, eye contact and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation interesting and the speaker appears comfortable. Supporting materials (illustrations, statistics, examples) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that generally supports the presentation or establishes the presenter's credibility/authority on the subject. The central message is clear and consistent with the supporting material.

C - Clarity of value and vision of the concept have been adequately communicated through moderate use of design narrative and storytelling. Information is organised and sequenced in a somewhat logical manner. Language choices are mundane and commonplace and partially supports the effectiveness of the presentation. Language is appropriate to the audience. Delivery technique (posture, gesture, eye contact and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation understandable and the speaker appears tentative. Supporting materials (illustrations, statistics, examples) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that partially supports the presentation or establishes the presenter's credibility/authority on the subject. The central message is basically understandably, but is not often repeated and is not memorable.

D - Neither vision nor value of concept has been communicated. Poor/limited attempt to share design narrative and storytelling. Information is not well-organised. Language choices are unclear and minimally support the effectiveness of the presentation. Language is not appropriate to the audience. Delivery technique (posture, gesture, eye contact and vocal expressiveness) detract from the understandability of the presentation and the speaker appears uncomfortable. Insufficient supporting materials (illustrations, statistics, examples) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that minimally supports the presentation or establishes the presenter's credibility/authority on the subject. The central message is deduced, but is not explicitly stated in the presentation.

A - Thorough critical and contextual evaluation and reflection has been undertaken against all aspects including the value proposition and identified success criteria. Needs of end user, manufacturer and all stakeholders have been critically and thoroughly evaluated and reflected upon. Insights are thorough and objective. Actions have been clearly identified for the next phase of development based on findings and insights. Further areas of research and/or current gaps in knowledge have been clearly identified with a strategic plan of implementation. Next phase of development includes a thorough and complete re-design of concept and presented as client facing documentation to a professional standard. Focus is clearly on the product (and not process and/or personal)

B - A critical and contextual evaluation and reflection has been undertaken against most aspects including the value proposition and identified success criteria. Needs of end user, manufacturer and all/most stakeholders have been critically evaluated and reflected upon. Insights are good and objective. Actions have been identified for the next phase of development, based on findings and insights. Further areas of research and/or current gaps of knowledge have been identified with a plan on implementation. Next phase of development includes a suitable re-design of concept and presented as client facing documentation to a good standard. Focus is on the product (and not process and/or personal).

C - A limited contextual evaluation and reflection has been undertaken against some aspects including the value proposition and identified success criteria. Needs of end user, manufacturer and most/some stakeholders have been evaluated, somewhat critically and mostly been reflected upon. Insights lack depth and objectivity at times. Limited actions have been identified for the next phase of development and may not be based on findings and insights. Some relevant areas of further research and/or gaps in knowledge have been identified with a limited plan of implementation. Next phase of development includes a limited re-design of the concept and is presented as mainly client facing documentation to a satisfactory standard. Focus is mainly on the product. Or the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to the student's ability. Or the work is incomplete.

D - Evaluation is limited in depth, context, and criticality, being mostly descriptive. Some attempt to evaluate against value proposition and identified success criteria is evident. Needs of user, manufacturer and stakeholders have only been superficially evaluated, with minimal or no reflection. Insights are simplistic. Next phase of development is poor, based mainly on personal assumptions and not on findings and insights. Limited area of further research and/or gaps in knowledge identified, with a limited, unrealistic, or simplistic plan provided. Next phase of development includes a simplistic and limited re-design of the concept or aspects of the concept. Presentation of this phase is either not suitable for a client or is of a poor client facing standard. Focus is sometimes on the product. Discussion of process and self is included when there is no requirement to do so. Or the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to the student's ability. Or the work is incomplete.

A - A block model has been manufactured to an exceptional standard. A sophisticated quality of finish has been achieved with clear consideration for the attention to detail within the outcome. Outcome convincingly communicates the intent, value and brand identity to the client.

B - A block model has been manufactured to a high standard. A good quality of finish has been achieved, and attention to detail has mostly been good. Outcome communicates effectively the intent, value and brand identity to the client.

C - A block model has been manufactured to a moderate standard. A moderate quality of finish has been achieved. Moderate attention given to the detailing. Outcome communicates adequately the intent, value and brand identity to the client.

D - A poor block model has been manufactured. Quality of finish is generally poor, with a general lack of attention given to the details of the model. Outcome poorly communicates the intent, value and brand identity to the client.

VISUAL AIDS (40%) A - Highly effective use of original 2D visual aids (i.e. photos, sketches, illustrations, renders etc.) which effectively communicate important and contextual factors. Visual aids are of a high quality, and correctly referenced/described.

B - Appropriate use of original 2D visual aids (i.e. photos, sketches, illustrations, infographics, renders etc.), which communicate important and contextual factors. Visual aids are of a good quality and correctly reference/described, but may benefit from some refinement.

C - Some appropriate use of 2D visual aids (i.e. photos, sketches, illustrations, infographics, renders etc.) but with some gaps in communicating important and contextual factors. Visual aids are of an acceptable quality, but require refinement and may not be correctly described/referenced.

D - Insufficient use of 2D visual aids (i.e. photos, sketches, illustrations, infographics, renders etc.) to communicate important and contextual factors. Visual aids are of a low quality or require significant refinement, and may not be correctly described/referenced.

COMMUNICATION OF DESIGN THINKING(40%) A - Excellent communication of ongoing design thinking, decision-making, and reflection on a variety of research outcomes and relevance. All secondary sources are correctly referenced. Final product features are defined and focused, and clarify the value of the design.

B - Good communication of ongoing design thinking, decision-making, and reflection on a variety of research outcomes and relevance. Most secondary sources are correctly referenced. Final product features are clear, and outline the value of the design.

C - Communication of key milestones, but doesn't include detail of ongoing design thinking, decision-making, and reflection on a variety of research outcomes and relevance. Final product features are presented but lack coherence, and doesn't fully communicate the value of the design.

D - Significant gaps in the communication of ongoing design thinking, decision-making, and reflection on a variety of research outcomes and relevance. Final product features are unclear. The value of the design is not clearly communicated.

STRUCTURE & APPEARANCE (20%) A - Document and page structure is excellent and suitable for. Appropriate/contextual use of colour, graphic design, and space, in a cohesive 2D format. Original and creative design. Free of grammatical errors. Words are highly legible. The portfolio is suitable for outward facing communication without any amendments, and shows a clear consideration of the desired audience.

B - Document and page structure is good and well presented, but with some areas for refinement. Appropriate/contextual use of colour, graphic design, and space, in a cohesive 2D format. Some original and creative design. Largely free of grammatical errors. Most words are legible. With some minor alterations/corrections, the portfolio is suitable for outward facing communication, and shows consideration of the desired audience.

C - Document and page structure is not clear. Some consideration of colour, graphic design and space, but at times this detracts from content, or design doesn't compliment the content. Several grammatical errors. Several words are not easily legible. With some focussed amendments, portfolio could be suitable for outward facing communication. Further consideration of desired audience needed.

D - Document and page structure has many weaknesses. Limited consideration of colour, graphic design and space, which detracts from the content. Many grammatical/spelling errors. Significant issues with legibility. The portfolio is not suitable for outward facing communication without substantial review and refinement.

A - A number of Arduino circuits have been identified through independent study, (not covered within the tutorials). Detailed evidence has been provided of circuits working and code being adapted. Detailed evidence has been provided to demonstrate understanding of ‘what is happening’.

B - All relevant exercises have been completed successfully. Detailed evidence has been provided of circuits working and code being adapted Detailed evidence has been provided to demonstrate understanding of ‘what is happening’.

C - Majority of exercises have been completed successfully. Elements such has code, inputs and outputs have been somewhat altered and understood. Or the evidence provided is not sufficient to demonstrate full understanding. Or the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to the student's ability. Or the work is incomplete.

D - Less than half of the tutorials have been completed. Or no elements (code, inputs and outputs) have been altered. Or the evidence provided is not sufficient to demonstrate full understanding. Or the work suffers from a level of effort substandard to the student's ability. Or the work is incomplete.

Arduino and Digital Graphics

Subject classes and workshop over 8 weeks

Workshop and manufacturing skills development