⭐ Student Project Rubric¶
This rubric provides comprehensive evaluation criteria for C-STEM student projects, including STEM fairs, project-based learning, and classroom projects. It integrates technical assessment with faith integration and 21st century skills.
📋 Overview¶
Purpose: Evaluate student C-STEM projects holistically
Users: Teachers, STEM fair judges, students (self-assessment), peer reviewers
Total Points: 100 points across five categories
📊 Evaluation Categories¶
| Category | Weight | Description |
|---|---|---|
| STEM Content & Process | 30 points | Technical knowledge, scientific method, engineering design |
| Faith Integration | 20 points | Catholic teaching connection, purpose, and wonder |
| Service & Application | 15 points | Real-world application, service orientation |
| 21st Century Skills | 20 points | Collaboration, communication, critical thinking, creativity |
| Presentation & Documentation | 15 points | Display, explanation, documentation quality |
🔬 Category 1: STEM Content & Process (30 points)¶
Scientific Method / Engineering Design Process (15 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 15 Exemplary | • Thorough application of scientific method or engineering design process • Clear hypothesis/design challenge with excellent rationale • Rigorous procedure/design iteration • Accurate data collection and analysis • Evidence-based conclusions |
| 12 Proficient | • Good application of method/process • Clear hypothesis/challenge • Complete procedure/design steps • Adequate data and analysis • Reasonable conclusions |
| 9 Developing | • Basic application of method/process • Hypothesis/challenge present but unclear • Some procedural gaps • Limited data or analysis • Conclusions loosely connected to evidence |
| 6 Beginning | • Incomplete method/process • Weak hypothesis/challenge • Significant gaps in procedure • Minimal data • Conclusions not supported |
| 3 Insufficient | • Method/process not followed • No clear hypothesis/challenge • Procedure unclear or missing • No meaningful data • No valid conclusions |
Technical Knowledge & Application (15 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 15 Exemplary | • Deep understanding of STEM concepts • Sophisticated application of knowledge • Accurate use of technical vocabulary • Evidence of advanced learning beyond grade level • Clear mastery of relevant skills |
| 12 Proficient | • Good understanding of concepts • Appropriate application • Correct technical vocabulary • Grade-level knowledge demonstrated • Skills effectively applied |
| 9 Developing | • Basic understanding shown • Some application errors • Limited technical vocabulary • Some knowledge gaps • Skills partially applied |
| 6 Beginning | • Weak understanding • Significant application errors • Incorrect vocabulary • Major knowledge gaps • Skills minimally demonstrated |
| 3 Insufficient | • Lack of understanding • No effective application • No technical vocabulary • Concepts not grasped • Skills not evident |
🙏 Category 2: Faith Integration (20 points)¶
Catholic Teaching Connection (10 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 10 Exemplary | • Deep, meaningful connection to Catholic teaching • Specific Catholic Social Teaching principle applied • Faith naturally woven throughout project • Student articulates faith-science harmony • Scripture or Church teaching referenced appropriately |
| 8 Proficient | • Clear connection to Catholic teaching • CST principle identified • Faith integration evident • Student understands faith-science relationship • Some reference to Catholic sources |
| 6 Developing | • Basic faith connection • General reference to Catholic values • Faith feels added rather than integrated • Limited understanding of harmony • No specific Catholic sources |
| 4 Beginning | • Weak faith connection • Generic religious reference • Faith not meaningfully integrated • Faith-science connection unclear • No Catholic specificity |
| 2 Insufficient | • No faith connection evident • Project could be purely secular • Missed opportunities for integration • No understanding of Catholic perspective |
Wonder and Purpose (10 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 10 Exemplary | • Project inspired by wonder at God's creation • Clear sense of purpose beyond self-interest • Deep appreciation for beauty/complexity in nature • Student expresses awe and gratitude • Purpose connects to Catholic vocation |
| 8 Proficient | • Wonder evident in project selection • Good sense of purpose • Appreciation for creation shown • Student shows curiosity and gratitude • Purpose includes serving others |
| 6 Developing | • Some wonder present • Basic sense of purpose • Limited appreciation for creation • Curiosity somewhat evident • Purpose not clearly articulated |
| 4 Beginning | • Little wonder evident • Weak sense of purpose • No appreciation for creation • Curiosity not apparent • Self-focused purpose |
| 2 Insufficient | • No wonder or curiosity • No sense of purpose • Mechanical approach to project • No connection to creation • Purpose absent |
❤️ Category 3: Service & Application (15 points)¶
Real-World Application (8 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 8 Exemplary | • Project addresses genuine real-world problem • Application is practical and achievable • Clear beneficiaries identified • Solution is innovative and effective • Potential for actual implementation |
| 6 Proficient | • Good real-world connection • Practical application evident • Beneficiaries identified • Solution is workable • Some implementation potential |
| 4 Developing | • Some real-world connection • Application is theoretical • Beneficiaries vaguely identified • Solution needs refinement • Implementation unclear |
| 2 Beginning | • Weak real-world connection • Application not practical • No beneficiaries identified • Solution not viable • No implementation path |
Service Orientation (7 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 7 Exemplary | • Project explicitly designed to serve others • "Hands and Feet of Christ" approach evident • Serves marginalized or vulnerable populations • Student articulates service motivation • Connection to Catholic Social Teaching clear |
| 5 Proficient | • Clear service component • Others will benefit from project • Service motivation evident • Student understands service connection • Some CST awareness |
| 3 Developing | • Some service awareness • Potential to help others noted • Service not central to project • Limited articulation of service • CST connection weak |
| 1 Beginning | • Little service orientation • Self-focused project • Helping others not considered • No service motivation • No CST connection |
💡 Category 4: 21st Century Skills (20 points)¶
Critical Thinking & Problem-Solving (8 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 8 Exemplary | • Exceptional problem analysis • Multiple solutions considered • Evidence-based decision making • Ethical considerations included • Deep reasoning demonstrated |
| 6 Proficient | • Good problem analysis • Alternative solutions explored • Logical decision making • Some ethical awareness • Sound reasoning |
| 4 Developing | • Basic problem analysis • Few alternatives considered • Decision making not fully explained • Limited ethical awareness • Some reasoning gaps |
| 2 Beginning | • Weak problem analysis • No alternatives considered • Poor decision making • No ethical awareness • Reasoning unclear |
Collaboration & Communication (7 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 7 Exemplary | • Excellent teamwork (if applicable) • Clear, articulate communication • Respectful engagement with others • Active listening demonstrated • Builds on others' ideas |
| 5 Proficient | • Good teamwork • Clear communication • Respectful toward others • Listens to feedback • Works well with others |
| 3 Developing | • Basic teamwork • Communication needs improvement • Mostly respectful • Limited listening • Some collaboration challenges |
| 1 Beginning | • Poor teamwork • Unclear communication • Respect issues • Does not listen • Difficulty collaborating |
Creativity & Innovation (5 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5 Exemplary | • Highly original approach • Creative problem-solving • Innovative design/solution • Uses God-given gifts creatively • Takes appropriate risks |
| 4 Proficient | • Good originality • Creative elements present • Some innovation • Gifts applied creatively • Willing to try new things |
| 3 Developing | • Some originality • Limited creativity • Follows existing approaches • Creativity not fully utilized • Risk-averse |
| 2 Beginning | • Little originality • Not creative • Copies others' work • Does not explore • Avoids risks |
| 1 Insufficient | • No originality • No creativity evident • Plagiarism concerns • Does not engage creatively |
📋 Category 5: Presentation & Documentation (15 points)¶
Display/Visual Presentation (8 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 8 Exemplary | • Outstanding visual presentation • Well-organized and attractive • Easy to understand • Professional quality • Effectively communicates project |
| 6 Proficient | • Good visual presentation • Organized and neat • Clear communication • Quality work • Project well-represented |
| 4 Developing | • Adequate presentation • Some organization issues • Partially clear • Average quality • Project somewhat represented |
| 2 Beginning | • Poor presentation • Disorganized • Unclear • Low quality • Project poorly represented |
Oral Explanation (7 points)¶
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 7 Exemplary | • Confident, articulate explanation • Deep understanding evident • Answers questions thoroughly • Connects all aspects (STEM, faith, service) • Engaging delivery |
| 5 Proficient | • Clear explanation • Good understanding shown • Answers most questions • Makes connections • Adequate delivery |
| 3 Developing | • Basic explanation • Some understanding gaps • Difficulty with questions • Limited connections • Nervous delivery |
| 1 Beginning | • Poor explanation • Lack of understanding • Cannot answer questions • No connections made • Ineffective delivery |
📊 Score Sheet¶
Project: ________________________________¶
Student(s): ____________________________¶
Date: _____________ Evaluator: _________________¶
| Category | Possible | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| STEM Content & Process | |||
| - Scientific Method/Engineering Design | 15 | ||
| - Technical Knowledge | 15 | ||
| Faith Integration | |||
| - Catholic Teaching Connection | 10 | ||
| - Wonder and Purpose | 10 | ||
| Service & Application | |||
| - Real-World Application | 8 | ||
| - Service Orientation | 7 | ||
| 21st Century Skills | |||
| - Critical Thinking | 8 | ||
| - Collaboration & Communication | 7 | ||
| - Creativity & Innovation | 5 | ||
| Presentation & Documentation | |||
| - Display/Visual | 8 | ||
| - Oral Explanation | 7 | ||
| TOTAL | 100 |
Score Interpretation¶
| Score Range | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 90-100 | Exemplary | Outstanding project; model for others |
| 80-89 | Proficient | Excellent project; meets all C-STEM standards |
| 70-79 | Developing | Good project; some areas need strengthening |
| 60-69 | Beginning | Project needs improvement in multiple areas |
| Below 60 | Insufficient | Project does not meet C-STEM standards |
🌟 Special Recognition Categories¶
Consider additional recognition for:
☐ Faith Integration Award - Exceptional connection between faith and science
☐ Service Hero Award - Outstanding "Hands and Feet of Christ" application
☐ Innovation Award - Most creative and original approach
☐ Wonder Award - Project that inspires awe at God's creation
☐ Perseverance Award - Demonstrated exceptional persistence through challenges
☐ Collaboration Award - Outstanding teamwork (for group projects)
💬 Feedback Section¶
Strengths:¶
Areas for Growth:¶
Faith Integration Feedback:¶
Overall Comments:¶
Rubric Version: 2.0
Framework: C-STREAM
Based on: NCEA STREAM Standards & C-STEM Fair Best Practices