Skip Navigation

Group Project - Group Project Video Judging Criteria/Rubric

UBMS Design Video Assessment      

       GROUP NAME: ________________________________
     REVIEWER NAME: _____________________________         Date:________________

This rubric asks viewers to comment on Group Design Project video demonstration of the following: (1) Content; (2) Quality of Production; and (3) Technical Skill.

A)   CONTENT: Are the following sections present and do they address the following points? (30%)


Title and contributors present
Field experiences
Deciding upon a problem/thought process
Idea development
Uniqueness, importance of your design


Prototype design development
Physical materials
Construction process

3) RESULTS  (5%)

Model presentation
“Looks like” or “works like”
How does design work?
How does design solve problem?
Model is clearly depicted and described


Why invention matters – usefulness, uniqueness of prototype
Results compared to previous developments in the field
Issues or roadblocks to construction/development
What went well?
What would your group change next time/do differently?
(Ideas for adjustments or experiments needed to test prototype)


Design/technical conclusions (emphasize design importance)
Implications for scientific community
Implications for local scientists/graduate student scientists
Why should your design be funded?
Personal reflections (Does each group member discusses interpersonal/social lessons from group work – highlights and challenges?)

6) VIDEO LENGTH (5%)  Is video 10 min + 2 minutes long?  YES  or  NO; video length ______  

B) QUALITATIVE PRODUCT REVIEW: Please comment on the overall content, academic and entertainment quality, cohesiveness, creativity and accuracy, technical skill, and inspirational quality of this video. What is your lasting impression of the video? What impact did it have upon you as the viewer?  (40%)

Consider the following points:

•Professional and Knowledgeable – Is the video and are the presenters professional and knowledgeable?

•FunIs it evident students had fun making the video? Are they enjoying learning?

•Creativity – What is the overall originality of the video (presentation, style, ideas, etc…)?

Coherence – Does the video flow from one objective to the next (make sense to the viewer, and add to their understanding of the process)? Does it show the process of prototype development from beginning to end?

•Visual Aesthetics – Consider the video’s appearance and visual appeal. Do these add to/detract from the overall video quality and viewing experience?

•Cinematography – How is audio and lighting quality? Is the camera operation steady? Do these creatively add to/detract from the overall video quality and viewing experience?

•Video Editing – Is it apparent that the video has been edited in a way that makes for a clean final product?

Academic and Entertainment Quality – Is the academic material presented in a scholarly, useful, professional manner that is also entertaining to watch?

Your written review:



C)  FUNDING - If you were granting money to fund the next stage of product development for this design, does the video inspire you to fund the invention/innovation? Why or why not? What elements inspire funding? What detract from your desire to fund this group? (30%)




Back to Group Project