2012-2013 program manual - peter kiewit institute
TRANSCRIPT
1
Peter Kiewit Institute (PKI) Phone 402.554.2098 1110 S 67th St – PKI 391 Fax 402.554.2170 Omaha, NE 68182 [email protected]
2012 ‐ 2013
Proposal, Presentation and Evaluation Manual
2
3
Table of Contents
Welcome to the SAME Student Mentoring Program (SMP) ..................................................................... 5
Program Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 6
SMP Roles .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Submittals ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Written Proposal ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Presentation ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Awards ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Subject Matter Experts (SME) ................................................................................................................. 18
Workshop ................................................................................................................................................. 18
General Information ................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix A – Evaluation Forms ......................................................................................... 21
Appendix B – Evaluation Rubric for Evaluation Criteria A – C .......................................... 25
Appendix C – Evaluation Rubrics for Evaluation Criteria D .............................................. 26
Appendix D – 2012-2013 Program Schedule .................................................................... 32
Appendix E – Example Project Schedule .......................................................................... 33
Appendix F – Mentoring Resources .................................................................................. 34
Appendix G – Plagiarism Policy ......................................................................................... 36
4
5
Welcome to the SAME Student Mentoring Program (SMP)
The Student Mentoring Committee of the Omaha Post, Society of American Military Engineers (SAME), wishes to thank you for participating in our program this year. We hope this packet will answer many of your questions.
The Proposal, Presentation, and Evaluation Manual is meant to be a ready reference containing most of our program material. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or if we can help in any way.
Sincerely,
Anne Peterson, RLA Gail Frame Vice President for Student Mentoring Program Administrator HDR Engineering, Inc. SAME SMP 402.399.1095 402.554.2098 [email protected] [email protected]
6
Program Overview
The program is designed to stimulate the student’s interest and excitement in engineering, architecture, and the related sciences. The program has been ongoing since 1994 and has offered more than 3500 students an opportunity to participate in “real‐life” projects facilitated by professional engineers and architects, and other science related professions. The program stresses teamwork and exposes students to how a professional looks at a situation, checks the options, determines the disadvantages and advantages of the situation, and selects a solution.
There are two divisions, the High School and the Middle School division. Each division team is comprised of interested students, the Teacher/Team Leader, and the Mentor. Each team:
Picks their own project topic
Defines the scope of work
Prepares:
o A written proposal
o Visual aids
o Plans and/or a model
Presents their project to a panel of judges to demonstrate what they have learned through the program.
SMP Roles
Team Leader
Communicate and coordinate with Mentor
Manage students – keep them focused and on schedule.
Facilitate opportunities for students to work on their project between scheduled meetings with the Mentor
QC Proposal and help with Presentation practices
Communicate with SMP program representatives for additional needs or concerns
Mentor
Meet with team on a regular basis (approximately once each week)
Provide direction in accomplishing project goals
Demonstrate how a professional would develop a project solution.
Give insight into architectural, engineering or related professions.
o Discuss the various fields of Engineering & Architecture.
o Demonstrate programs, equipment and other methods used in the course of your work.
7
o Show projects you have worked on.
o Tour your office or other engineering /architectural offices.
o Visit a job site under construction.
QC Proposal and help with Presentation practices
Communicate with SMP program representatives for additional needs, expertise, etc.
Students
Decide on the project.
Do the research.
Develop UNIQUE solution options.
Choose best solution.
Prepare written proposal.
Prepare presentation materials.
Give the presentation.
Answer questions from Judges.
8
Submittals
General Information Each team is required to post three submittals to the program website during the competition year. The program administrator will email the team leader the user name and password needed to post the submittals.
Each submittal must be posted by the due date to receive full points for the competition. The project is not complete until all three submittals are posted to the website. Teachers and Mentors please review your names, company information, logos, and the team’s information to make sure it is complete and correct, including spelling. This information will be used in the Awards Ceremony Program.
All information in the submittals will be posted to the SMP website except for the project schedule. The project schedule is for the team and program administrator’s use only.
Submittal Specifics
Submittal 1
Due on or before October 12, 2012.
Teams receive 30 points if the submittal is posted on or before the due date.
Required elements include:
o Project title
o Initial synopsis of the project (between 100 and 200 words)
o Tentative milestones and schedule for the project including the fixed program dates. A sample project schedule is located in Appendix E.
o Initial team roster with each student’s grade
Submittal 2
Due on or before February 6, 2013.
Teams receive 30 points if the submittal is posted on or before the due date.
Required elements include:
o Updates to project title/synopsis
o Updates to team roster
o Updates to milestones and activities
9
Submittal 3
Due on or before March 1, 2013.
Teams receive 30 points if the submittal is posted on or before the due date.
Required elements include:
o Final team roster with each student’s grade
o Final project title and synopsis
o Updates to team milestones and activities
Information provided in this submittal will be used to generate the Awards Ceremony Program and student participation certificates. Please make sure it is correct, especially spelling of team member names.
Web Posting Instructions
The Program Administrator will provide a new USERNAME and PASSWORD for each team.
Students must get the USERNAME and PASSWORD from their teacher.
To post a submittal:
o Access the SMP website at www.pki.nebraska.edu/simp.
o Click on Teams>Submittal Interface
o Select the specific submittal and click on it.
o Enter the required information into the form.
o When finished, click the Preview Submittal button at the bottom of the page.
o If changes are needed, use the back arrow and make changes.
o When finished with review click Submit Entry button, print copy and exit.
10
Written Proposal
General Information The intent of this program is to emulate the "real‐life" process of an architectural or engineering project. The evaluation process is not to be an academic exercise. Like real life, a written proposal introduces an architect’s or engineer’s project to an interested potential client. If the proposal is good enough, the authors get an opportunity for an interview or in‐person presentation.
Delivery
Written Proposals are due on or before March 8, 2013 by 5:00 PM.
Five unbound three‐hole‐punched copies must be delivered to the program administrator. Please note: An electronic copy of the proposal will be requested from the winning teams.
Mail or deliver to:
University of Nebraska at Omaha, PKI 301 1110 South 67th Street Omaha, NE 68182‐0694 Attn: Gail Frame
Teams receive 60 points if received on or before the due date.
Reports that are not turned in by the due date may not be judged, resulting in zero points awarded.
Format
Page Size is 8 ½x11” for text and 8 ½x11” or 11x17” (foldout) for figures and text.
All 11x17” sheets shall be single sided.
Text content limited to a maximum of 20 typewritten pages, excluding non‐text items such as graphics, photos, charts, etc.
If non‐text items are interspersed with text, total text portion may not exceed 20 equivalent pages.
The cover sheet is not counted as part of the 20 page limitation.
Appendix material is optional. It does not count as part of the 20‐page limitation, but cannot exceed 20 additional pages.
Minimum body font size is 10 point.
In complying with our “green” approach, text should be placed on the front and back of each page.
11
Content Each proposal must include the following elements; however proposals are not limited to only these elements.
Title Page including:
o School Name
o School Team Leader
o Mentor Name(s)
o Brief Project Description Title
o Date
o List of Names and Grades of All Student Team Members
Project Problem Statement
Recommendations (Project Solution)
Action Plan for Implementation of Recommendations
Team Organization (for example, a chart)
Process Description (Journey Documentation)
Lessons Learned
Acknowledgments
Bibliography
If any of these minimum content elements are missing, the proposal will be considered incomplete and will not receive the full potential of awarded points
12
Presentation
General Information
The presentations will be on Thursday, April 11, 2013.
Presentations will be held at the Scott Conference Center– University of Nebraska at Omaha
The following time limits apply:
High School Division
Set‐up 5 minutes
Presentation 20 minutes maximum
Interview (Q & A) 10 minutes maximum
Clean‐up 5 minutes
Middle School Division
Set‐up 5 minutes
Presentation 15 minutes maximum
Interview (Q & A) 10 minutes maximum
Clean‐up 5 minutes
Content
Presentations are intended to add to, build upon or emphasize elements presented in the written proposal.
The use of models and display boards is strongly encouraged but NOT REQUIRED.
Models, boards, videos and other visual aids can be used to demonstrate a design element, a process, show plans, etc.
There are no evaluation points given for having a model.
Any handouts accompanying the presentation shall be limited to 8 single‐sided pages (8½ x11” or 11x17” foldout sheets). These are also NOT REQUIRED.
Room Size and Equipment
The competitions will be held in the four side rooms and the Board Room. Room sizes are 26x37 ft. except for the Board Room which is 26x44 ft.
Each room will have two 2’x5’ tables (for displays or models) and one easel
Rooms have built‐in large screens for presentation.
Teams will be responsible for all other support equipment and arrangements for any special requirements or conditions they may have. Please contact the Program Administrator at least one week prior to Competition Day if additional equipment is needed.
13
All models/display boards/etc. are to be stored in the Center Room on the specified tables until needed for the presentation.
After the presentation model/display boards/etc. are to be returned to the Center Room.
At the end of the competition event (about 3:30 pm) model/display boards/etc. and table will be moved to locations along the outside walls by Program Officials and event staff. Please do not leave valuable on the tables unattended, such as laptops, cameras, video players, etc. The team may bring these back and set them up on the display tables for the evening Awards event.
Program Officials and SCC staff will not be responsible for lost items.
Miscellaneous
Students are strongly encouraged to attend other team presentations. Otherwise, teams are asked to stay in the Center Room area during presentations to keep hallways outside presentation rooms quiet.
Once a presentation has begun, no one will be allowed to enter or exit in an effort to minimize disruptions for the speakers. Please let everyone know this including parents.
Certificates for each student participating will be presented to the teachers during the competition so they may give them to the students.
Photographs of each team with teacher(s) and mentor(s) will be taken before or after the team’s presentation out in the Center Room. Team Plaques with these photographs and the gold and or silver level of achievement medals will be delivered to the teacher a few weeks after the Awards Ceremony.
Lunch will be available at the SCC cafeteria at own cost. Teams must contact the Program Administrator prior to the competition day to give a head count for lunch and submit payment for lunch tickets.
14
Evaluation
Evaluation Panels Panels of industry experts will evaluate and score projects using the Evaluation Forms located in Appendix A. The rubrics used to assist in point assignment for the projects are located in Appendices B and C.
Evaluators will be rotated between rooms such that the same four evaluators will only preside together once. One group will evaluate High School teams and a separate group will evaluate Middle School teams. No evaluator will judge both High School and Middle School teams.
Evaluators will be selected from military engineering, college level education and the architecture or engineering industry and consulting.
Evaluation Criteria
Problem Identification and Development (PROPOSAL & PRESENTATION)
The following are key components in successfully identifying and developing the project problem:
Need and Demand: Recognize the need for a project, define the issues and describe the demand for a solution. Needs and demand are often discovered through the use of surveys, interviews and other primary research sources, as well as comparisons with existing resources.
Clarity of description: Explain the problem clearly and thoroughly.
Real world relevance: Identify and describe who or what are the clients, users, or other elements impacted by the problem, how they are affected, and how this relates to actual or current conditions.
Complexity: Identify, research and report the various aspects of the problem.
Originality: Define and explain the problem issues in an original or unique way. Examples include, but are not exclusive to, relating the problem in a personal way to team experience, defining a problem that requires innovative solutions, or evaluating a common problem with an uncommon approach.
Recommendations and Action Plan (PROPOSAL & PRESENTATION)
Clarity of description: Explain the solution clearly and thoroughly. Address issues defined in the problem identification. Use research, figures, examples, diagrams, tables and other exhibits to show thoroughness of design process and support conclusions.
Real world feasibility: Identify how the recommendations or solutions will benefit the client, users or elements, including (but not exclusively) economically, socially, environmentally or politically.
15
Solution value relative to cost: Provide an estimate of the project costs, and describe how the solution is worth the price of the project. For example, discuss the life‐cycle benefits of the solution compared to initial project costs.
Action plan for implementation: Describe the steps needed to implement the project. Identify possible funding sources. Indicate what approvals may be needed and who would need to provide approval, i.e. school boards, city council, U.S Army Corps of Engineers, etc. to further implement the project.
Journey and Lessons Learned (PROPOSAL ONLY)
Team journey description: Describe the process on project selection and why the preferred project was chosen. Report team activities, such as field trips, interviews, and research, used toward developing the problem and solution.
Development issues and resolutions: Explain efforts toward developing teamwork and cooperation between members. Describe barriers to teamwork, design, or project development issues and how they were overcome.
Lessons learned and applicability to future: Describe principles learned or discovered in developing project. Report on activities that were unique to the team outside the regular academic experience and how the activities benefited the team or individual members. Describe what may have been done differently, given the teams’ experience on this project, and how this would apply to future projects. Describe how the experience working on this project may affect team performance in other activities outside this program.
Merit Categories
The following six merit categories, defined by the program requirements, represent design elements that should be incorporated into every project, regardless of the project type:
Applied Science
Innovation
Research
Sustainability
Teamwork
Technology
During the project planning process, the teams should keep in mind how aspects of their project apply to these categories.
For example, a well‐planned and successful project would require extensive research and good teamwork. By performing, documenting and then applying primary research (surveys, interviews, etc.) and secondary research (reliable internet sources, scientific manuals, studies, etc.), a team would demonstrate a good understanding of the research element. Employing team building activities early in the process can build trust and communication skills within the team. Matching team members’ interests and abilities to project assignments may generate more enthusiasm about the project, which will be demonstrated by team synergy.
Additionally, demonstration of the sustainable or innovative elements does not preclude that the project be wholly about those subjects. Rather, the team can arrive at their solution
16
and then integrate sustainable strategies or discover innovative methods that enhance their recommendations.
The use of applied science or technology is inherent in an approach to a ‘real world’ engineering, architectural or scientific project. Known methods or processes are used to calculate or evaluate data to support desired results. Participating in and then demonstrating some understanding of these methods or processes is key to learning about engineering and architecture professions.
The definitions, examples and rubrics for each of these categories are shown in Appendix C.
17
Awards
Types of Awards
Post President’s Awards
Highest points in each of the High School and Middle School divisions.
High School Team: Trophy, $1,000 cash award for the school and a $1,000 Scholarship for a graduating senior pursuing a degree in Engineering, Architecture, or related sciences.
Middle School Team: Trophy and a $1,000 cash award for the school.
Awards of Distinction
Sponsored by SAME Sustaining Members
After the Post President Award team, the next five teams with highest scores in each division (total of 10 awards) will be presented an Award of Distinction.
Teams receive trophy and $250.
Gold and Silver Level of Achievement in Merit Categories
Gold and Silver medals will be placed on team plaque with team picture.
Level of achievement will be recognized at Awards Ceremony.
Awards Ceremony
Along with the competition results, the Awards Ceremony will feature a key speaker or presentation, scholarship announcements and camp participant announcements.
All teams must participate in the Student Awards Ceremony. It is expected that all will dress appropriately.
Teachers and Mentors are strongly encouraged to attend the Awards Ceremony event. If your team receives an award, you are asked to come to the stage with your team and be photographed.
Parents and other family members are encouraged to attend the Awards Ceremony.
All participants’ names along with candid shots and team photos may be posted to the Program web site. Photographs of teams receiving awards are sent to the sponsor of that award as part of the recognition process.
The Program staff will be processing scoring between the end of the competition day and the Awards Ceremony. If time allows, copies of the Evaluator’s critiques will be given to the teachers at the Awards Ceremony. Further scoring feedback will be provided at a later date, when the team plaques are delivered.
Post President and/or Award of Distinction recipients may be asked to speak and/or display their projects during the next year at a SAME Omaha Post meeting, Industry Day Exhibition, E‐Week, and other opportunities that may arise. Please preserve your models and/or display boards for these events.
18
Subject Matter Experts (SME)
Subject Matter Experts (SME) The Program Administrator and Vice President for Student Mentoring will have a list of Subject Matter Experts (SME) available as a resource for teams during the program year. These SMEs have volunteered to be available to consult with teams when special expertise, knowledge, guidance or other support is needed on the project. Arrangements to meet with the SME, whether at the school or the SME’s office, is the responsibility of the team, team leader and mentor. The SME is not a mentor, or exclusive to one team. The program encourages teams to take advantage of this resource to get a fuller problem solving experience and make connections with professionals.
Workshop
A Workshop will be held on the Saturday morning date noted in the Calendar for all team members, teachers and mentors. The workshop is held at The Peter Kiewit Institute, using the classrooms and computer labs in this campus building. This workshop will provide teams with an opportunity to better understand the program elements and network with other teams, teachers and mentors, as well as program staff. Instruction in the following subjects has been offered in the past, but the final workshop program will be announced prior to the workshop date:
Technical Writing
Cost Estimating
Presentation & Graphics
Building Codes
Model Building
Sketchup
Revit
Team Building
Teams, including teachers and mentors, are strongly encouraged to attend. This workshop provides further insight into the program requirements, provides teams with problem solving tools, and attendance will give the team an advantage. Lunch is provided. The Program will also offer other incentives for attendance.
Teams that have attended the past workshops have found the information very helpful towards completing a successful project. Even if your team has attended in the past, we try to find new subjects to present. Team representation is very important. Suggestions on future subject matter is also encouraged.
19
General Information
News media (print and television) will be encouraged to cover the students throughout the project development process.
Teachers, mentors, students and evaluators will be asked to complete post project surveys.
Requests for reimbursement of expenses by teams for their projects must be submitted to the Program Administrator for approval prior to purchase.
A Volunteers’ Social will be held in January for all adult program participants, including teachers, mentors, judges, room monitors, workshop instructors, program staff, and SAME Board Members. This Social is intended to thank the participants, and provide an opportunity for networking. It is a good time to discuss program issues, exchange ideas, give suggestions, and anything that enhances the program experience. The time and venue will be announced later, but the date is set on the program calendar, so please note and reserve that date.
20
Appendices
Appendix A .......................................................... Evaluation Forms Appendix B .......................................................... Evaluation Rubric ‐ Evaluation Criteria A ‐ C Appendix C .......................................................... Evaluation Rubrics ‐ Evaluation Criteria D Appendix D ......................................................... 2010 – 2011 Program Calendar Appendix E .......................................................... Example Project Schedule Appendix F .......................................................... Mentoring Resources Appendix G ................................................................. Plagiarism Policy
21
Appendix A – Evaluation Forms
Evaluator Scoring The following forms are used to evaluate the projects. Overall Category Ratings are to be recorded in all of the shaded "Ratings" column fields on the Evaluation Forms for each team.
Only fractional ratings in increments of 0.5 allowed. (The only exception to this is specific to the Proposal Phase Evaluation Form ‐ Field E "Required Proposal Content" ‐ see instruction on form).
Our computer program will calculate all judging panel evaluator scores. The final scores will be in the hundreds. The evaluation system was designed so the final scores do not look academic.
The rubrics that the judges use for Evaluation Criteria A – C are found in Appendix B. The rubrics for the merit categories scored in Evaluation Criteria D are found in Appendix C.
All scoring is added to derive the highest team score for in each division. These teams are eligible for the Post President’s Awards.
The scores for the Proposal, Presentation and Merit Categories are then evaluated as to where they fall within a prescribed range for the Gold and Silver Levels of Achievement. Each gold or silver level acquired generates medal points. These medal points determine which teams win the Awards of Distinction. If there is a tie in the medal points, the higher overall team score determines the outcome.
22
PROPOSAL PHASE EVALUATION FORM
SCHOOL NAME (and team number if more than one team) _______________________________________________
SCHOOL CODE (from Room Assignments & Schedule Form) ________
PROJECT TITLE (from Proposal) ____________________________________________________________________ Required Content: 1. Title Page/Sheet: Include school name, school team leader, mentor name(s), brief project description title, date and list of
names and grades of all team members 2. Project problem statement 3. Recommendations (project solution) 4. Action plan for implementation of recommendations 5. Team organization (chart) 6. Process description (journey documentation) 7. Lessons learned
Acknowledgments NOTE: Total proposal text content that will be considered is limited to a maximum of 20 typewritten pages, excluding any optional graphics,
photos or charts (as deemed necessary). If graphics, photos, charts, etc. are interspersed with text, total text portion may not exceed 20 equivalent typewritten pages. Appendix material is optional, Minimum permissible text body font size is 10 point.
RATING SCALE:
RATING = 0 NOT DEMONSTRATED
RATING = 1 REWORK
RATING = 2 GOOD
RATING = 3 VERY GOOD
RATING = 4 OUTSTANDING
EVALUATION CRITERIA *POINT ** Circle One A. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION/ DEVELOPMENT 12 pts. 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
1. Clarity of description 2. Real world relevance (project need and impact) 3. Level of difficulty (from where the team started). 4. Originality
B. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN 20 pts. 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
1. Clarity of description 2. Validity of technical solution basis 3. Real world feasibility (economically, politically, socially) 4. Solution value relative to cost 5. Action plan for implementation
C. JOURNEY & LESSONS LEARNED 6 pts. 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
1. Team journey description 2. Team development issues & resolutions 3. Lessons learned (outcomes applicable in future)
D. MERIT CATEGORIES (Provide ratings in all 6 categories)
1. Applied Sciences 2. Innovation 3. Research 4. Sustainability 5. Team Work 6. Technology
1 pt 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1 pt 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1 pt 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1 pt 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1 pt 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
1 pt 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
E. REQUIRED PROPOSAL CONTENT 1. Includes ALL required content & text 1 pt 0.0 4.0
* The boxed point value shown indicates relative weight of evaluation category **Circle your rating in the shaded area. Fractional ratings in increments of 0.5 only The circled ratings will be put into a computer program that will apply the point values and calculate the score
Evaluator
Date
23
PRESENTATION & INTERVIEW EVALUATION FORM
SCHOOL NAME (and team number if more than one team) _________________________________________
SCHOOL CODE (from Room Assignments & Schedule Form) ______
PROJECT TITLE (from Proposal) ________________________________________________
Requirements: 1. Set-Up: 5 Minutes 2. Presentation: 20 Minutes High School / 15 Minutes Middle School 3. Interview (Q&A): 10 Minutes 4. Clean Up: 5 Minutes
Presentation Handout (Optional; Not Required) 1. Limited to 8 pages, single sided, 8½”x11” or 11”x17” foldout sheets with 4 color maximum
RATING SCALE:
RATING = 0 NOT DEMONSTRATED
RATING = 1 REWORK
RATING = 2 GOOD
RATING = 3 VERY GOOD
RATING = 4 OUTSTANDING
EVALUATION CRITERIA *POINT **Circle One A. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION/ DEVELOPMENT 24 pts. 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1. Clarity of description 2. Real world relevance (project need and impact) 3. Level of difficulty (from where the team started) 4. Originality B. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN 40 pts. 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1. Clarity of description 2. Validity of technical solution basis 3. Real world feasibility (economically, politically, socially) 4. Solution value relative to cost 5. Action plan for implementation C. TEAM PRESENTATION & PANEL (Q&A) 8 pts 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1. Readability and appropriate use of graphics / posters/slides /
videos and/or models
2. Conclude presentation within allocated time period 3. Presentation flow (lack of transition ”dead” spots) 4. Knowledgeable responses to evaluator questions D. MERIT CATEGORIES (Mark all 5 categories) 1. Applied Sciences (field or lab experimentation) 2 pts 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 2. Innovation (i.e. topic and/or solution) 2 pts 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 3. Research 2 pts 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4. Sustainability 2 pts 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5. Team Work 2 pts 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 6. Technology 2 pts 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 * The boxed point value shown indicates relative weight of evaluation category. **Circle your rating in the shaded area. Fractional ratings in increments of 0.5. The circled ratings will be put into a computer program that will apply the point values and calculate the score. Evaluator
Date
24
OVERALL EVALUATION SUMMARY
The teams are very interested in their overall performance. The evaluator is encouraged to comment on each team. Evaluators must be mindful of the age of the students and provide only constructive criticisms. SCHOOL NAME (and team number if more than one team) ______________________________________________
SCHOOL CODE (from Room Assignments & Schedule Form) ______
PROJECT TOPIC _______________________________________________________________________________ COMMENTS
REPORT:
PRESENTATION:
Please use back if needed Evaluator Name (not required): Date:
25
Appendix B – Evaluation Rubric for Evaluation Criteria A – C
Problem/ Solution/ Journey Evaluation
Rating Category Interpretation
4 Outstanding Problem and solution are clearly defined, well explained, accurate and of highest quality in content and appearance.
Proposal and Presentation is well organized, demonstrates thorough knowledge of project elements and provides detailed support.
Presentation builds upon information provided in Proposal.
Project approach is original. Team issues and resolutions discussed. Several team building activities used and incorporated into project results.
Project could definitely be taken to higher development level.
3 Very Good Problem and solution are substantially defined, accurate and of good quality in content and appearance.
Proposal and Presentation is organized, demonstrates sufficient knowledge of project elements and provides some support.
Presentation builds upon information provided in Proposal.
Project approach discussed. Team issues and resolutions discussed. Participation in some team building activities.
Problem and/or solution include no inaccuracies or grammatical errors.
2 Good Problem and/or solution sufficiently defined and require minor clarifications.
Team issues and resolutions discussed.
Problem and/or solution include some minor inaccuracies or grammatical errors.
1 Rework Problem and/or solution insufficiently defined and require major clarifications.
Proposal and/or Presentation have major grammatical errors, inaccuracies, and/or poorly organized. Proposal and Presentation do not relate well to each other.
Team issues briefly reported. No team building activities noted.
0 Not Demonstrated Did not address requirements.
26
Appendix C – Evaluation Rubrics for Evaluation Criteria D
Applied Science
Applied science is using established scientific and mathematical knowledge to develop a solution to a real world problem. Engineering and architecture is artfully applying science in order to solve problems.
Examples of applied science may include:
Performing calculations (by hand or with computer software) in order to design a system or determine the effectiveness of a system
Evaluating material properties
Applying information about human health or human perception to a design
Applying experimental methods to develop a database or test a solution
Applied Science
Rating Category Interpretation
4 Outstanding Goes well beyond the expectation in use, demonstration, and reporting of applied science methods.
Applied science is completely integrated into the project solution, and reporting makes it clear the team made a conscious decision to do so.
3 Very Good Includes or demonstrates the methods of applied science.
Project solution or reporting includes no inaccuracies or errors in use, application, or reporting of applied science methods.
2 Good Includes or demonstrates the methods of applied science.
Project and/or solution includes some minor inaccuracies or errors in use, application, or reporting of applied science methods.
1 Rework Includes or demonstrates the methods of applied science.
Project solution or reporting includes major inaccuracies or errors in the use application, or reporting of applied science methods.
Project and/or solution claims or attempts to include applied science methods, but project topic does not support the full potential of the category.
0 Not Demonstrated Project does not include applied science methods.
27
Innovation Innovation is the introduction of something new, for example a new idea, method, or device.
The team demonstrates innovation in the selection, development or solution of their project. Innovation may include any of the following:
A unique, imaginative, “outside the box” solution for the needs of their project
An improvement of an existing technological product or system
Use of “cutting edge” technologies or materials for their project
A unique way of using common technology or materials for their project
The development of a solution for a future need or project
Innovation
Rating Category Interpretation
4 Outstanding Project and/or solution includes multiple concepts or technologies that have rarely been tried or proposed.
Use of the concepts or methods are fully explained and justified.
The project or solution seems very feasible within the project constraints given the extremely new and innovative concepts.
Project and/or solution has no inaccuracies or errors in claiming, describing or reporting innovation.
3 Very Good Project and/or solution demonstrates the use of multiple new cutting edge ideas or methods. In each case innovation is identified and well described.
The project or solution seems feasible within the project constraints given the extremely new and innovative concepts.
Project and/or solution has minor inaccuracies or errors in claiming, describing or reporting innovation.
2 Good Project and/or solution demonstrates the use of at least one new cutting edge idea or method.
Innovation is identified and well described; project and/or solution includes major inaccuracies or errors in claiming or reporting innovation.
Feasibility of the innovation is questionable within the project constraints or is not fully addressed.
1 Rework Some innovation in project topic and/or solution is included, but may not be well described or identified.
Innovation that is included is not feasible within project constraints.
0 Not Demonstrated Innovation is not demonstrated in the project.
28
Research Basic research is driven by curiosity or interest in a question or topic. It can be gathered from primary sources such as surveys, observation, and studies or secondary sources such as published reports, articles, books, and studies from academically reliable sources. All sources of secondary research should be documented in a bibliography.
The team demonstrates in‐depth research associated with their project in any of the following:
Research into various alternatives for selection of the project solution
Research into the needs of project users through surveys, interviews, etc.
Research on information associated with a component of the project problem solution
Research
Rating Category Interpretation
4 Outstanding All sources are documented.
Primary and secondary research is used throughout the project.
Research is clearly described and applied to the solution. It includes several supporting details and/or examples.
3 Very Good All sources are documented.
Primary and secondary research is used anecdotally in the project.
Research is clearly described and relates to the solution. It provides some supporting details and/or examples.
2 Good Most sources are documented.
Only secondary research was evident in the project.
Research clearly relates to the solution. Few details and/or examples are given.
1 Rework Sources are not documented.
Limited research was evident on the project.
Research has little or nothing to do with the solution.
No details and/or examples are given.
0 Not Demonstrated No research was gathered for the project.
29
Sustainability Definitions of sustainability often refer to the "three pillars" of social, environmental and economic sustainability. Using sustainable strategies in project and solution development will minimize harmful environmental impact on the earth and promote human physical and physiological health. Projects can use LEED strategies but are not restricted to these guidelines.
Examples of sustainable strategies may include:
Reusing land and materials for a new purpose
Creating energy efficient designs
Generating power from renewable resources such as wind and solar energy
Designing with a reduced amount of material and waste
Conserving water
Using renewable materials for a project
Designing products that will produce fewer toxins during construction and operation
Improving the quality of people’s environment
Creating designs that will react to their users and their environment
Sustainability
Rating Category Interpretation
4 Outstanding Goes well beyond the expectation in use, demonstration, and reporting of unique sustainable strategies.
Sustainable strategies are completely integrated into the project and solution, and reporting makes it clear the team made a conscious decision to do so.
3 Very Good Includes or demonstrates sustainable strategies.
Project solution or reporting includes no inaccuracies or errors in use, application, or reporting of its sustainable strategies.
2 Good Includes or demonstrates sustainable strategies.
Project and/or solution includes some minor inaccuracies or errors in its use, development, application, or reporting of sustainable strategies.
1 Rework Includes or demonstrates the concepts of sustainability, but does not fully describe or fulfill the possibilities for sustainable strategies as it applies to the project.
Project solution or reporting includes major inaccuracies or errors in the use, development, application, or reporting of sustainable strategies.
0 Not Demonstrated Did not include sustainable strategies.
30
Teamwork Teamwork maximizes team synergy through extensive active participation of all team members, at both the (specialized task) work group and overall team levels. Teamwork maintains team effort (as a group) through resolution of difficult circumstances.
Effective teams comprehend, recognize, and capitalize on the diverse strengths, abilities, and talents of the individual team members. Effective teams also apply individual talents to the project work, solution, and (written/oral) reporting in a clearly coordinated fashion that demonstrates on‐going intra‐team communications.
Teamwork can be evident in the presentation and in the Journey and Lessons Learned section of the written proposal.
Teamwork
Rating Category Interpretation
4 Outstanding Teamwork is fully integrated into the project and/or solution in ways that allow each team member to achieve their full potential in terms of their individual talents.
Team displayed obvious energy and team spirit and it is evident that all team members contributed to the project.
Team participated in teamwork building activities and documented those activities in the written proposal or presentation.
3 Very Good Teamwork is clearly demonstrated and/or reported.
Most team members appear to be fully engaged in the project and/or solution.
2 Good Some demonstration of team work is reported, but some misunderstandings of the spirit of teamwork are shown.
Some team members do not appear to be fully engaged in the project and/or solution.
1 Rework Demonstration of teamwork is minimal.
Project work and reporting appears to be the work of only a few individuals working together as one group.
No apparent division of labor to maximize the talents of all individuals.
0 Not Demonstrated No teamwork was demonstrated.
31
Technology Technology is the knowledge and application of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization. Technology changes the natural environment to satisfy our wants and needs.
Technology can be evidenced in a project by appropriate application and/ or use of existing known scientific, engineering, and/or architectural process‐related technology to enable or enhance the project solution.
Technology
Rating Category Interpretation
4 Outstanding Project and/or solution includes multiple technologies.
Technology applications are project‐appropriate, fully explained and results‐justified. Team understands the technology process.
The project or solution as aided by technology seems very feasible within the project constraints.
3 Very Good Project and/or solution demonstrates the appropriate use of one or more technologies.
In each case, applied technology is clearly identified and well‐described.
Project and/or solution has no inaccuracies or errors in claiming, describing or reporting technology (‐ies).
2 Good Project and/or solution demonstrates an appropriate use of technology or a mix of technologies that are minimally identified and described.
Project and/or solution includes some inaccuracies or errors in claiming or reporting of applied technology.
Indicated results from use of technology are not clearly substantiated or are somewhat questionable within the otherwise‐stated project constraints.
1 Rework Some technology was applied to the project topic and/or solution, but is either not feasible or is misapplied within the project’s constraints.
Technology is incorrectly or improperly described or identified.
0 Not Demonstrated Did not include use of technology in project.
32
Appendix D – 2012‐2013 Program Schedule
September 19, 2012 Teacher/Mentor Orientation
October 12, 2012 Submittal 1 (30 points) Teacher and Mentor Information Tentative project title and brief synopsis Tentative milestones and schedule Initial team roster with each student’s grade
October 13, 2012 Workshop
January 17, 2013 Volunteer Social
February 6, 2013 Submittal 2 (30 points) Updated team roster Updated milestones and schedule Other updates and accomplishments
March 1, 2013 Submittal 3 (30 points) Final project title and synopsis Final team roster with each student’s grade Updates to team milestones and activities
March 8, 2013 Written Proposal Due (60 points)
March 26, 2013 Judges Orientation
April 11, 2013 Competition and Awards Ceremony
May 7‐8, 2013 Industry Day (2013 Program Winners)
Summer TBD SAME Meeting (2013 Program Winners)
33
Appendix E – Example Project Schedule
Your schedule and any updates should be posted at school for all team members to read!
The bold goals are common to all teams and MUST be included.
Milestone Date
Goal (Item to Complete)
Completed (Check Box)
m/d/y Introduce program and mentors, brainstorm and discuss projects
m/d/y Finalize project selection, team assignments , scope, description, synopses, and timeline
m/d/y Develop (Research, Survey, etc.) Questions, Survey, Visit (mentor office, a work site, ?)
m/d/y Submittal #1 due (via web site)
m/d/y Review survey results, continue research, develop project
m/d/y Submittal #2 due (via web site)
m/d/y Workshop (at PKI, 1110 South 67th)
m/d/y Continue project work , model work and report, documentation , cost analysis, adjustments
m/d/y Submittal #3 due (via web site)
m/d/y Finalize report and drawings
m/d/y Report Due (PKI Room 391 before 5:00 pm)
m/d/y Presentation Work , Model Work
m/d/y Presentation & Awards (At Scott Conference Center 6450 Pine St)
34
Appendix F – Mentoring Resources
Thank you so much for donating your time to our program. This is our 19th year and without our mentors the program simply would not work.
The following is designed to help you get started mentoring your team. The first few sessions should be focused on team building and gaining trust between all of the team members, student to student, and student to adult.
Suggestions for Mentors
1. As soon as you know which school team you have been assigned, contact the second mentor and the school Team Leader (teacher) and find out the team’s meeting schedule. We ask that you or the second mentor plan to spend an hour each week with the team. Over the course of the project, this will amount to about 30 hours for which you may qualify for a maximum of 30 PDH’s. (You must fill out our end of year questionnaire and request the PDH’s you have worked in order to receive a certificate)
2. At the first team meeting, use this opportunity to get acquainted with the students.
a. Tell them about yourself, where you work, and what type of work you do.
b. Ask them about their interests.
c. Give them an overview of the mentoring program and its schedule. (Orientation Handbook)
d. Suggest that they keep a diary, which will come in handy when they start to write their report. (For about $2, you can buy a "Project Planner" which is ideal for this purpose.)
3. At the next meeting(s), you should discuss engineering methods; brainstorming, problem solving, and teamwork.
4. It's important to acquaint the students with the power of teamwork early on. Ask them to look up the definition of "synergism" as an assignment and then have them report at the next meeting on what it means.
5. Explain that engineering is about solving problems. Remember, you are a resource for the team. You should not be doing their work. It is important that they own the project. It may take you as many as four to five meetings before you get them to a point where they have covered all this material and they can zero in on a project.
6. Get them to write a synopsis of their project and to set up a schedule to complete the project in time for the presentations. These are part of the requirements for the first submittal
7. You may not be able to make all their meetings. This is one of the reasons for two mentors per team. Let the team and your co‐mentor know this in advance. Keep each other appraised of the teams’ progress.
35
8. Take the students to your (or a friend’s) office and show them where architects / engineers work and what the company produces. Most have no idea what an office looks like, what you physically do, or your company's connection to the real world.
9. You are a resource for your team, not the resident expert; if you need assistance in an area outside of your expertise, or have any problem, contact the Program Administrator or the Program Chairperson. SAME has many sustaining member firms that are totally committed to the Mentoring Program. The program will have a list of Subject Matter Experts (SME) to choose from so you can find more expertise related to your project. It is your responsibility to arrange for meetings with the SME.
10. You should help critique their written report and their oral presentation just as your boss does for your work, but keep in mind their age and experience. Do not do these tasks for the students. The students have the ultimate responsibility for these tasks. They must own the project. SMEs are available to assist with writing and layout if needed.
11. Plan to be available for their oral presentation and for the awards ceremony. It will show you care about their work. Also, we would like to have you included in the team photos.
12. Remember, the reason for the program is to introduce architectural and engineering concepts to the students. It is very important to understand that we strongly believe that all the students who participate in the program are winners.
Suggestions for Teachers
1. Contact your team mentors as soon as possible. Set up a weekly schedule for meeting as soon as possible, so the Mentor can plan work activities and travel around this time.
2. Plan activities so that team members can take the best advantage of the mentors’ time. The mentors should be engaging with team members, not observing activities with little or no interaction. Work that can be done without the mentors’ presence should be done at other times than weekly meetings.
3. Make arrangements for all travel outside of the classroom, including permission slips, so that teams may visit mentor offices, sites relating to project, the workshop, and the competition day.
4. Check and review all required submittals. It is VERY IMPORTANT to make the submittal on time, and very easy points to obtain. Although it is encouraged that the students do the work of the submittal, not making the deadline can be detrimental to the rest of the project efforts.
5. Team building includes interaction between teacher and mentors. A good relationship, division of labor and other positive activities will be an advantage to your team, as well as good role modeling.
36
Appendix G – Plagiarism Policy
SAME Student Mentoring Program Plagiarism Policy All of us – teachers, students, mentors and parents‐ acquaint ourselves with information and ideas by reading print and digital texts created by others, and we write in order to analyze, synthesize, evaluate, and/or extend that body of knowledge.
The use of sources is an important academic skill. Over the course of their academic years, students should become proficient in locating sources, evaluating them for relevance and credibility, integrating information and ideas from other texts into their own work, and citing sources using the appropriate conventions.
Whenever students write a paper drawing upon outside sources, the ethical standards of the SAME Student Mentoring Program require that any information, idea, or language that originates with another writer be appropriately acknowledged.
Quotation
If material is copied verbatim from any source, whether print or digital, quotation marks must be put around the verbatim text and a citation of its source must be provided.
Paraphrase
“Paraphrase” does not mean copying someone else’s sentences with a few changes in the wording. Instead, it means putting another writer’s ideas into the writer’s own words, crafting their own sentences, and using the ideas to advance their line of thought. Paraphrased text must have the source cited.
Citation
Style manuals such as those of American Psychological Association (APA) and the Modern Language Association (MLA) offer extensive guidelines on using and citing quoted and paraphrased material. These and other style guidelines are available in any good writing handbook and at Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/
Plagiarism
Use of borrowed ideas, information, or language without appropriate citation is plagiarism. This is a serious academic offense and will not be tolerated in the SAME Student Mentoring Program. The purpose of the SMP program is to mentor and guide the students through the program’s requirements and it is the responsibility of all participants to monitor and encourage the proper acknowledgment of other’s work and ideas.
ADAPTED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA OMAHA PLAGIARISM POLICY