Engineering Notebook Rubric v2.0

OFFICIAL Source document: GRSF Engineering Notebook Rubric v2.0 (August 6, 2026). Its linked scoring document controls; the descriptions below are Spartan explanations. The four levels are Beginning (1), Developing (2), Proficient (3), and Exemplary (4). The five categories organize evidence, not a mandatory sequence of notebook chapters. Our six-step lessons remain useful coaching. Students document their actual work under our student-centered policy guidance.

Notebook Organization

16 pts · 4 criteria

Information is easy to reference

Pages are numbered, entries are ordered chronologically or by section, and a table of contents leads to specific entries.

Exemplary · 4Numbered pages, ordered entries, and a TOC that points to specific entries.
Proficient · 3Numbered pages with a TOC, but finding an entry takes searching.
Developing · 2Some organization, but locating information is difficult.
Beginning · 1No pagination or table of contents; information cannot be located.

Contributors are identifiable

The team number appears on the notebook, and every entry is signed or initialed by the student who wrote it.

Exemplary · 4Team number on the notebook; all entries signed/initialed by their author.
Proficient · 3Team number appears and most entries are attributed to a student.
Developing · 2Team number appears, but entries are rarely attributed.
Beginning · 1Team number missing, or entries not attributed at all.

Record spans the season

Dated entries span the season, demonstrating a consistent habit of notebooking.

Exemplary · 4Dated entries span the season — a consistent notebooking habit.
Proficient · 3Dated entries span the season with some gaps.
Developing · 2Entries cluster in a few short periods; large stretches missing.
Beginning · 1Entries undated, or all appear to have been created at one time.

Outside sources are credited

Outside sources — designs, mechanisms, code, and ideas the team built on — are named where they appear / where they were used.

Exemplary · 4Outside sources named right where they appear.
Proficient · 3Most outside sources named, though some appear without credit.
Developing · 2A few sources named, or credits appear only as a list, not where used.
Beginning · 1Outside work appears with no credit.

EDP — Define

12 pts · 3 criteria

Criteria and constraints are defined

The notebook defines and explains the problem along with the rules and constraints that could impact possible solutions.

Exemplary · 4Defines and explains the problem plus the rules and constraints affecting solutions.
Proficient · 3Defines a problem without explanation, and lists related criteria and constraints.
Developing · 2A problem is defined without specific criteria or limits.
Beginning · 1The problem is not defined; no criteria and constraints appear.

Game strategy is documented

The notebook describes the team's scoring priorities with reasoning and the tradeoffs that come with those priorities.

Exemplary · 4Scoring priorities with reasoning AND the tradeoffs of those priorities.
Proficient · 3Scoring priorities with some reasoning; no tradeoffs documented.
Developing · 2Strategy mentioned without reasoning.
Beginning · 1No strategy is documented.

Brainstorming is documented

Several distinct approaches (coding, engineering, and/or strategy) are recorded with enough detail to see how they differ.

Exemplary · 4Several distinct approaches recorded with enough detail to see how they differ.
Proficient · 3Three or more approaches without comparison, or one or two ideas with comparison.
Developing · 2One or two ideas appear with no comparison.
Beginning · 1No brainstorming, or a single solution appears already chosen.

EDP — Develop Solutions

16 pts · 4 criteria

Prototypes are documented

The notebook shows continuous prototyping with three or more attempts at a solution that clearly connect to one another.

Exemplary · 43+ connected prototyping attempts that build on one another.
Proficient · 3Two or more attempts with a connection between them.
Developing · 2A single build, with little sense of what preceded it.
Beginning · 1No prototyping is documented.

Test procedures are defined

Tests state what was measured, how, and under what conditions, so the test could be repeated.

Exemplary · 4What was measured, how, and under what conditions — repeatable.
Proficient · 3Tests state what was measured and how.
Developing · 2Testing mentioned without saying what was measured or how.
Beginning · 1No testing documented, or the robot was tried with no test described.

Data is collected

Tests produce recorded qualitative AND quantitative results in a form that can be used for data-based decision making.

Exemplary · 4Qualitative AND quantitative results, usable for data-based decisions.
Proficient · 3Only qualitative OR quantitative measurements (not both).
Developing · 2Results described in general terms, without measurements.
Beginning · 1No results are recorded.

Decisions are explained with evidence

The notebook states what the team decided, how the decision was made, who was part of it, and what evidence led to the choice.

Exemplary · 4What was decided, how, WHO was involved, and the evidence behind it.
Proficient · 3Decisions stated with reasoning and evidence; no indication of who was involved.
Developing · 2Decisions appear with little or no reasoning or evidence.
Beginning · 1Changes appear with no indication of why.

EDP — Optimize

12 pts · 3 criteria

Mechanisms are documented

Sketches, images, or CAD show a built solution, with descriptive labels that show how or why parts of the mechanism exist.

Exemplary · 4Sketch/image/CAD of the build WITH labels explaining how/why parts exist.
Proficient · 3Sketch/image/CAD of the built solution with basic labels.
Developing · 2Images without explanation of how or why the mechanism works.
Beginning · 1The built solution is not documented.

Code is documented

Pseudocode, flowcharts, annotated screenshots, or commented code show the intention behind the code and how it was developed.

Exemplary · 4Code documented WITH intention and how it was developed.
Proficient · 3Code documented in one of these forms, with intention explained.
Developing · 2Code appears with little or no explanation.
Beginning · 1No code documentation appears.

Changes are traceable to results

Changes to the robot or code follow from recorded test results, and the notebook makes the connection explicit.

Exemplary · 4Changes follow from recorded test results; the connection is explicit.
Proficient · 3Changes follow from testing, though the connection is sometimes implied.
Developing · 2Changes and testing both appear, but are not connected.
Beginning · 1Changes appear with no testing behind them.

EDP — Reflection & Iteration

8 pts · 2 criteria

Reflection appears throughout

The notebook shows a continuous pattern of reflection throughout the season, and reflections shape what happens next.

Exemplary · 4Continuous reflection all season that shapes what happens next.
Proficient · 3Reflections appear at more than one point in the season.
Developing · 2Reflection only at the end, or only a general summary.
Beginning · 1No reflection, or entries record activity without evaluating it.

Iteration is visible in sequence

The notebook shows a continuous pattern of iteration throughout the season using the EDP for building, strategizing, and coding.

Exemplary · 4Continuous iteration all season across building, strategizing, AND coding.
Proficient · 3A pattern of iteration in one or two categories.
Developing · 2Some iteration in one category.
Beginning · 1Little to no iteration.

TOTAL — 64 points  ·  Organization 16 · Define 12 · Develop 16 · Optimize 12 · Reflection & Iteration 8