SDGO RUBRICS

评估规则

Rubrics will be shown to all tutors, adivors, juries, and especially to participants, who then will know what our requirements are in each phase and how their work is going to be graded. Jury will give grades using the rubrics. For each phase, there will be 6 entries, with each having 10 points.

Grey Phase

Rubrics for grey phase.
Below Standard
(0 - 2 points)
Approaching Standard
(3 - 5 points)
At Standard
(6 - 8 points)
Above Standard
( 9 -10 points)
1Establish and frame the initial question
(Opening Workshop)
- question proposed is not related to any life experience or does not have any real life context
- question proposed is weakly related to one of the two SDG topics
- the level of challenge of the question is inappropriate ( e.g. too simple or has single answer / sounds too complex or “academic”)
- is not able to identify reasonable activities / processes / stakeholders
- question is weakly related to students' life experience
- question is reasonably related to one of the two SDG topics
- the level of challenge of the question is toward the easy side, or toward being impracticle
- is able to identify with more than one activities / processes /stakeholders, however not comprehensive, and the link is superficial and toward unreasonable
- question is originated from life experience through keen observation and has novelty
- question proposed addresses important issues of SDG#6 or SDG#12, and touches multiple sub-goals of the 2 SDGs
- is able to identify plenty of different human activities / processes /stakeholders related to the proposed question; address important and/or novel perspectives of the question with insights; is able to develop empathy for different stakeholders
2Design and implement field study
(Opening Workshop - Week 2)
- the field study design is severely flawed, or doesn't address the team's question
- the field study collects only simple numerical data or narrative.
- the field study design is arbitrary without proper rationale/explanation
- field study is not / little implemented
- implementation completely fails to follow the design; data collected is limited
- field study design in a way addresses the question but has minor unsuitability
- field study design covers both numerical and narrative data collection.
- the choice of field study design method is explained (or referenced), though is not completely convincing
- field study is implemented according to design; data and information collected are reliable and adequate for generating insights.
- field study design is suitable for the proposed question, and serves the research purpose
- field study design covers both numerical and narrative data collection. Two types of data complement each other in answering the questions.
- the choice of field study design method is explained with good reasons (and/or with reference), and on top of that, has novelty
- field study is well implemented; data and information collected are reliable, multi-dimensional and of high quality; data comes from multiple sources of information
3Analyse study results
(Week 1 - 2)
- does not post-process the data
- analysis of the study results is superficial or severely flawed
- not able to generate insight from the analysis
- analysis doesn't help to develop the initial question
- is able to post-process the data; extract valid data and information
- is able to analyse the study results and generate basic insights, though the analysis has minor flaws or misjudgement
- analysis results are able to help improve the initial question in a couple of perspectives
- is able to post-process the data; extract valid and important data and information; data well presented / visualized
- has clear and well-grounded analysis of the study results
- is able to discover important opportunity/insights from the analysis, which can drive a sustained inquiry
- analysis results are helpful in reframing the initial question by adding authenticity to the question
4Grey phase conclusion
(Phase report)
- Proposed question does not originate from real life experience and is very weakly related to students' everyday life
- Proposed question lacks academic component; or has already universal solutions to it therefore does not require further investigation; or is too simple and does not require sustained learning and investigation
- Proposed question is somewhat authentic: it is reasonbaly related to everyday life, and/or has limited potential to bring real life impact
- Proposed question has its academic component, but somehow mono-disciplinary at nature or lacks academic depth; or has already advanced solutions existing
- Proposed question is "authentic": it has its real life context, and/or its solution will bring real life impact
- Proposed question has the appropriate level of academic challenge, requires inter-disciplinary work; and is an open-ended, need-to-be-addressed question; it requires sustained inquiry and cannot be solved by a sigle google search
5Reflection and revision
(All Phases)
- Shows minimum reflection, or the reflection is superficial and does not have merit
- Is not able to come up with resonable revision plan
- Shows minimum practice of critical thinking when reviewing advisors' tips
- Does not give reasons why accepting/disrecarding advisors' tips
- Is able to reflect on previous work, though clearly miss important flaws or mistakes
- Is able to make some revisions to reflected issues, though revisions are limited or ill-suited
- Showed limited extent of practicing critical thinking when reviewing advisors' feedback
- Reasons given on why accepting/disrecarding advisors' tips have clear logical flaws
- Reflection is clearly present, e.g. is able to analyse the pros and cons of the study method used, choice of information sources and implementation details, etc.
- Is able to come up with revision plans to address the reflected issues
- Is able to use critical thinking when reviewing advise/tips from advisors, and to make well-grounded desicions about whether or nor to accept the advice.
- (If advisor tips are accepted) Is able to show how these tips has helped to improve their own project
- (If advisor tips are not accepted) Is able to give reasons explaining why the tips are discarded and to reflect on advisor's feedback
6Documentation
(All Phases)
- Fails to upload on time, or does not upload
- Misses major goas during this phase, and teamwork is messy
- Report lacks logic, and is unclear in what information is intented to be delivered
- Content is dry and does not have meaningful information
- Is able to upload the report on time
- Is able to identify some goals of this phase, though has missed some important goals. Teamwork is somewhat messy and imbalanced
- Report is somewhat coherent, though unclear in some parts, and has irrelevent information
- Report lacks richness, and is limited in its delivering forms
- Is able to upload the report on time
- Is able to clearly identify periodic goals of this phase, and to come up with specific execution plan and assign work among team members reasonably
- Report content is coherent, cohesive and succinct, and is able to deliver intented information and ideas
- Content has richness and is delivered with multiple forms (photos, recordings, videos...)

Yellow Phase

Rubrics for yellow phase.
Below Standard
(0 - 2 points)
Approaching Standard
(3 - 5 points)
At Standard
(6 - 8 points)
Above Standard
( 9 -10 points)
1Break down the question (from last phase) and link sub-questions to discplines
(week 3)
- Sub-questions raised are not divergent and trivial.
- Sub-questions have only minimum link to each other.
-In smaller-group-studies, fails to involve multiple discplines.
- Sub-questions raised are divergent into different but not so significat aspects...
- Sub-questions link to each other, but do not necessarily answer the core question when putting together.
-In smaller-group-studies, is able to involve multiple discplines from nature or social science.
- Sub-questions raised are divergent into different and SIGNIFICANT aspects: causes of question; state-of-art; constrains/feasibility of solutions...
- All sub-questions, though divergent, all point to the same goal, which is seeking one solution to the question raised in the last phase
-In smaller-group-studies, is able to involve multiple discplines from both nature and social science.
2Conduct research and gain academic knowledge
(Week 4)
- Most smaller groups are not able to find relevant references/experts/other channels to investigate and collect information and knowledge.
- References/expers/other info channels are not reliable
- Information and knowledge collected from all smaller groups fails to address their sub-questions.
- Most smaller groups are able to find references/experts/other channels to investigate and collect information and knowledge relevant to their own sub-question
- References/expers/other info channels are reliable
- Information and knowledge collected from all smaller groups are able to answer their sub-questions with minor flaw
- All smaller groups are able to find multiple references/experts/other channels to investigate and collect information and knowledge relevant to their own sub-question
- References/expers/other info channels are reliable and properly cited and credited
- Information and knowledge collected from all smaller groups are able to answer their sub-questions very well
3Critically review and apply gained knowledge
(Week 5)
- Is not able to propose critical view upon other groups
- Is not able to respond to challenges and critiques with reason
- Debate addresses trivial questions
- After debate, is not able to apply knowledge differently in their project.
- Is able to propose critical view upon other groups
- Is able to respond to challenges and critiques with less convincing reasoning.
- Debate addresses less significant questions, sometimes trivial.
- After debate, is able to apply knowledge with some conclusion based on the debate results in their project.
- Is able to propose critical view upon other groups
- Is able to respond constructively to challenges and critiques
- Debate addresses significant questions (major causes, state-of-art, constraints, etc.) rather than trivial ones
- After debate, is able to apply knowledge critically in their project.
4 Yellow Phase Conclusion
(Phase report)
- Have gained minimum information and knowledge regarding the team's question
- Approach and tools used doesn't serve their research purpose
- Elaboration of potential project outcome is not very well grounded.
- Elaboration of potential project outcome shows minimum consideration of potential obstacles and constrains
- Have gained relevant information and knowledge regarding the team's question
- Approach and tools used adequately serve their research purpose
- Elaboration of potential project outcome is well-grounded
- Elaboration of potential project outcome shows some consideration of potential obstacles and constrains
- Have gained academically-advanced and frontier information and knowledge regarding the team's question
- Approach and tools used are able to serve their research purpose well
- Elaboration of potential project outcome is promising and well-grounded
- Elaboration of potential project outcome shows rigrous consideration of potential obstacles and constrains
5Reflection and revision
(All Phases)
- Shows minimum reflection, or the reflection is superficial and does not have merit
- Is not able to come up with resonable revision plan
- Shows minimum practice of critical thinking when reviewing advisors' tips
- Does not give reasons why accepting/disrecarding advisors' tips
- Is able to reflect on previous work, though clearly miss important flaws or mistakes
- Is able to make some revisions to reflected issues, though revisions are limited or ill-suited
- Showed limited extent of practicing critical thinking when reviewing advisors' feedback
- Reasons given on why accepting/disrecarding advisors' tips have clear logical flaws
- Reflection is clearly present, e.g. is able to analyse the pros and cons of the study method used, choice of information sources and implementation details, etc.
- Is able to come up with revision plans to address the reflected issues
- Is able to use critical thinking when reviewing advise/tips from advisors, and to make well-grounded desicions about whether or nor to accept the advice.
- (If advisor tips are accepted) Is able to show how these tips has helped to improve their own project
- (If advisor tips are not accepted) Is able to give reasons explaining why the tips are discarded and to reflect on advisor's feedback
6Documentation
(All Phases)
- Fails to upload on time, or does not upload
- Misses major goas during this phase, and teamwork is messy
- Report lacks logic, and is unclear in what information is intented to be delivered
- Content is dry and does not have meaningful information
- Is able to upload the report on time
- Is able to identify some goals of this phase, though has missed some important goals. Teamwork is somewhat messy and imbalanced
- Report is somewhat coherent, though unclear in some parts, and has irrelevent information
- Report lacks richness, and is limited in its delivering forms
- Is able to upload the report on time
- Is able to clearly identify periodic goals of this phase, and to come up with specific execution plan and assign work among team members reasonably
- Report content is coherent, cohesive and succinct, and is able to deliver intented information and ideas
- Content has richness and is delivered with multiple forms (photos, recordings, videos...)

Red Phase

Rubrics for red phase.
Below Standard
(0 - 2 points)
Approaching Standard
(3 - 5 points)
At Standard
(6 - 8 points)
Above Standard
( 9 -10 points)
1Thinking through making
(week 6,7)
- Has provided a plan for the prototype, without time schedule or subtasks (week 6)
- Is NOT able to prototype and test it (week 7)
- Prototype idea is not grounded on evidences found in the grey and yellow phases
- Is NOT able to analyse the performance of the prototype, or propose ways to improve it
- Has provided a plan for the prototype, with not so clear time schedule or subtasks (week 6)
- Is able to prototype and test it in real life settings/scenarios, but scenarios have major limitations. (week 7)
- Prototype idea is partially grounded on evidences found in the grey and yellow phases
- Is able to analyse the performance of the prototype, and propose possible improvements and modifications
- Has provided a plan for the prototype, with clear time schedule and sub-tasks. (week 6)
- Is able to make a agile prototype and test it in suitable real life settings/scenarios. (week 7)
- Prototype idea is well grounded on evidences found in the grey and yellow phase
- Is able to analyse the performance of the prototype, and propose possible improvements and modifications, and proposal addresses key problems of the prototype
2Public Engagement
(week 6,7)
- Has attempted to reach audiences outside the team (school mates, family members, friends...)
- Has not attempted to reach broader audiences outside their close social circle: factory workers, government workers, the general public, etc.
- Has not used social media (zhihu, Weibo, Wechat, etc.) to spread their project
- The effectiveness of the promotion on social media is poor, or effectiveness is not shown in report
- Is able to reach audiences outside the team (school mates, family members, friends...)
- Reluctant to reach broader audiences outside their close social circle: factory workers, government workers, the general public, etc.
- Has used one social media form to spread their project
- The effectiveness of their promotion on social media is limited, or effectiveness is not shown in report
- Is able to reach audiences outside the team (school mates, family members, friends...)
- Has attempted or succeeded to reach broader audiences outside their close social circle: factory workers, government workers, the general public, etc.
- Has used multiple social media (zhihu, Weibo, Wechat, etc.) to spread their project
- Is able to prove viewership/readership on their social media, and to prove the effectiveness in raising public awareness and interests
3Promotion Video - Video lasts too shortly or too long.
- Video poorly explains the central question and the final solution.
- Video shows little process to reach the final solution.
- Video is neither aesthetically pleasing nor engaging
- Video length is around 1 minute.
- Video explains the central question and the final solution, but without a clear focus.
- Video shows the process to reach the final solution, but the process is somewhat a mismatch to the final solution.
- Video is aesthetically OK and sometimes engaging.
- Video length is around 1 minute.
- Video well explains the central question and the final solution.
- Video shows the process to reach the final solution, process is consistent with the result.
- Video is aesthetically pleasing and engaging.
4Final Presentation - Presentation lasts a lot more/less than 10 mins
- Presentation is not well structured
- Presentation presents poorly the final solution
- Presentation is communicated poorly and not engaging
- Presentation does not introduce important research students conducted in Phase Grey, Yellow and Red

*Students should refer to the guidebook for presentation guide. (e.g. "project starting point", "background story", "research conducted", "problem-to-solution process", "prototyping and reflection" and "future prospects". )
- Presentation lasts more/less than 10 mins
- Presentation is sometimes well structured
- Presentation presents the final solution but not so much how they come to the final solution
- Presentation is communicated OK and sometimes engaging
- Presentation introduces research students conducted in Phase Grey, Yellow and Red

*Students should refer to the guidebook for presentation guide. (e.g. "project starting point", "background story", "research conducted", "problem-to-solution process", "prototyping and reflection" and "future prospects". )
- Presentation lasts about 10 mins
- Presentation is well structured and has a clear focus
- Presentation is comprehensive in presenting the final solution as well as how they come to the final solution
- Presentation is well communicated and engaging
- Presentation introduces important research students conducted in Phase Grey, Yellow and Red

*Students should refer to the guidebook for presentation guide. (e.g. "project starting point", "background story", "research conducted", "problem-to-solution process", "prototyping and reflection" and "future prospects". )
5Defending Juries' Challenges- Is not able to correctly understand juries' questions, or answer accordingly
- Is not able to defend their project with reason
- Answers show poor understanding of their project topic/theme
- Is able to correctly understand juries' questions, and answer accordingly
- Is able to defend their project with minor flaws
- Answers show good understanding of their project topic/theme
- Is able to correctly understand juries' questions, and answer accordingly
- Is able to defend their project with solid reason
- Answers show in-depth understanding of their project topic/theme
- Answers not only defend their project, but also direct to new and promising perspectives
6Reflection and revision
(All Phases)
- Shows minimum reflection, or the reflection is superficial and does not have merit
- Is not able to come up with resonable revision plan
- Shows minimum practice of critical thinking when reviewing advisors' tips
- Does not give reasons why accepting/disrecarding advisors' tips
- Is able to reflect on previous work, though clearly miss important flaws or mistakes
- Is able to make some revisions to reflected issues, though revisions are limited or ill-suited
- Showed limited extent of practicing critical thinking when reviewing advisors' feedback
- Reasons given on why accepting/disrecarding advisors' tips have clear logical flaws
- Reflection is clearly present, e.g. is able to analyse the pros and cons of the study method used, choice of information sources and implementation details, etc.
- Is able to come up with revision plans to address the reflected issues
- Is able to use critical thinking when reviewing advise/tips from advisors, and to make well-grounded desicions about whether or nor to accept the advice.
- (If advisor tips are accepted) Is able to show how these tips has helped to improve their own project
- (If advisor tips are not accepted) Is able to give reasons explaining why the tips are discarded and to reflect on advisor's feedback
7Documentation
(All Phases)
- Fails to upload on time, or does not upload
- Misses major goas during this phase, and teamwork is messy
- Report lacks logic, and is unclear in what information is intented to be delivered
- Content is dry and does not have meaningful information
- Is able to upload the report on time
- Is able to identify some goals of this phase, though has missed some important goals. Teamwork is somewhat messy and imbalanced
- Report is somewhat coherent, though unclear in some parts, and has irrelevent information
- Report lacks richness, and is limited in its delivering forms
- Is able to upload the report on time
- Is able to clearly identify periodic goals of this phase, and to come up with specific execution plan and assign work among team members reasonably
- Report content is coherent, cohesive and succinct, and is able to deliver intented information and ideas
- Content has richness and is delivered with multiple forms (photos, recordings, videos...)