Awards

Each team at the showcase will make two presentations:

  1. An oral presentation / “elevator speech” (3 minutes + 2 minutes Q&A) as well as
  2. A poster presentation / demonstration. (Approximately 15 minutes with individual judges)

In addition, teams will get to explain their projects to members of other teams! The judges (practicing engineers) will score the engineering design and presentations as part of determining the recipients of the showcase awards!

Listing of the ExCEllence in Senior Design Showcase Awards

  • Best Engineering Design Award: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places awarded.
  • Teamwork Award
  • Your project couldn’t exist without each individual member of the team! Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together made you a success.
  • Making a Difference Award
  • Saving the human race? All in a senior design project! Your project takes into consideration impact on public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors
  • Spotlight Award
  • You’re ready for the Ted Talk Circuit! Your presentation skills wowed us.
  • Step Forward
  • You stretched your game beyond your comfort zone, learned new things and incorporated them into a great project.
  • Out of The Box Award
  • Most “daring” project. You had a BIG idea and your engineering creativity made it go.
  • Entrepreneurial Award
  • Calling all venture capitalists! This team’s project is ready to go. Most rounded project when considering the synergy between engineering and business.
  • Daring to be Green Award
  • Our favorite superheroes wear green. Best project with a focus on “green” technologies or sustainability
  • Peer Award
  • You’re the favorite! Each team at the showcase gets to vote for their favorite project(s).

Awards Determination

  • Best Engineering Design: 1st, 2nd, 3rd place
  • Related to all of the ABET Student Outcomes (SOs). Judges’ decision based upon scores in: Poster/Demo Q#1-4 and Oral Q#3-5 (with more weightplaced on Poster/Demo). Note: The Questions for the Poster/Demo and Oral Sessions are outlined below.
  • Teamwork Award: 1st place
  • Related to ABET’s Student Outcome - 5 (SO-5) “an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives” Judges decision based upon scores in: Poster/Demo Q#3 and Oral Q#4.
  • Making a Difference Award
  • Related to ABET’s (SO-2) and (SO-4) “an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors” and “an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts” Judges decision based upon scores in Poster/Demo Q#4.
  • Spotlight Award
  • Related to ABET’s (SO-1) “an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics” Judges decision based upon scores in Poster/Demo Q#6 and Oral Q#6.
  • Step Forward
  • Related to ABET’s (SO-7) “an ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies” Judges decision based upon scores in Poster/Demo Q#5.
  • Out of The Box Award
  • Related to ABET’s (SO-1) “an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics” Judges decision based upon scores in Poster/Demo Q#6 and Oral Q#6.
  • Entrepreneurial Award
  • Related to ABET’s (SO-2) “an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors” with a focus on the economic factors Judges decision based upon scores in Poster/Demo Q#7 and Oral Q#7.
  • Daring to be Green Award
  • Related to ABET’s (SO-4) “an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts” with a focus on the environmental and economic factors. Judges decision based upon scores in Poster/Demo Q#8.
  • Peer Award
  • Related to ABET’s (SO-3) “an ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences” including colleagues. The Team with the largest number of peer ballots.

ABET’s Criterion 3. Student Outcomes

The program must have documented student outcomes that support the program educational objectives. Attainment of these outcomes prepares graduates to enter the professional practice of engineering. Student outcomes are outcomes (1) through (7), plus any additional outcomes that may be articulated by the program.

  1. an ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics
  2. an ability to apply engineering design to produce solutions that meet specified needs with consideration of public health, safety, and welfare, as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors
  3. an ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences
  4. an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts
  5. an ability to function effectively on a team whose members together provide leadership, create a collaborative and inclusive environment, establish goals, plan tasks, and meet objectives
  6. an ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, and use engineering judgment to draw conclusions
  7. an ability to acquire and apply new knowledge as needed, using appropriate learning strategies.

The Judging Process at the ExCEllence in Senior Design Showcase

  1. Morning Oral Presentations
    • All of the judges are present for all of the oral presentations.
    • Each judge fills out a score sheet for every oral presentation.
  2. Afternoon Poster Presentations and Demonstrations.
    • The total judging time is 2 hours and each judge is expected to give scores to between 6 and 8 teams. Thus, each judge is expected to spend approximately 15 minutes for each team.
    • The 2 hours of judging time is divided into 2 parts: The first 90 min. and the last 30 min.
      • The first 90 min.: Each judge follows a predefined schedule and provides scoresheets for a total of 6 teams. Each team is visited by multiple judges.
      • The last 30 min.: Each judge is free to choose TWO more teams to score based upon the interest generated in them by the oral presentations.
    • Teams will have 30 minutes to visit and distribute their ballots for the “peer award” following the 2 hour judging period.
  3. A free time will follow for open discussions with other attendees and teams.

The Judging Rubric for the Oral Presentations

  1. OQ#1: Rate the team’s oral presentation skill. To help form your overall rating, you might consider the following:
    • How well did they summarize their project?
    • How well did they speak? (Volume and clarity.)
    • How well did they explain their visuals?
    • How compelling was the presentation?
  2. OQ#2: Rate the team’s visual presentation skill. To help form your overall rating, you might consider the following:
    • Were the visuals readable and well organized?
    • Were the visuals valuable to the presentation?
    • How well did they explain their visuals?
    • How well did the visuals catch your eye?
  3. OQ#3: Rate the overall quality of the project. To what degree does the design and implementation exhibit excellence?
  4. OQ#4: Rate how well the team demonstrated team work in presenting their project
  5. OQ#5: Rate how well the team was able to understand and answer questions.
  6. OQ#6: Rate the level of the team’s creativity in solving the engineering challenge. (“Biggest Idea”)
  7. OQ#7: If you were a venture capitalist, to what degree would you consider financing this project?

Judging Rubric for the Poster Presentations / Demonstrations: (Part of 8 awards.)

  1. PQ#1: Rate their poster presentation / demonstration skill.To help form your overall rating, you might consider the following:
    • How well did they describe their project?
    • How good was their supporting poster / demo?
    • How confident and enthusiastic were they?
    • How compelling / persuasive were they?
    • How well did they answer questions?
    • Did they demonstrate deep understanding?
  2. PQ#2: Rate the overall quality of the design. To help form your overall rating, you might consider the following:
    • Design met prescribed specifications?
    • Rate the level of the design challenge (Easy → Hard).
    • Was there a prototype and how well did it function?
    • How likely is the design to work as intended?
    • Did they go beyond requirements?
  3. PQ#3: Rate the level of teamwork demonstrated.
  4. PQ#4: How well did the design incorporate “societal” issues?
  5. PQ#5: How much “on the job” learning was required?
  6. PQ#6: How creative (or “risky” or “big-idea”) is the design?
  7. PQ#7: Rate their business plan. How ready is it for market?
  8. PQ#8: How “green” is the design? (Sustainable? Renewable?)
    Please note the “green” aspects here: _______________________________________
    ________________________________________________________________________
  9. PQ#9: Is this a top contender for Best Engineering Design? ____ Yes ___ No ___ Maybe

Judging Rubric for the Peer Award

The participating teams contribute to the Peer award

  1. Each team is given 6 ballots to cast for their favorite project(s) at the showcase.
  2. They can choose to cast their ballots for either
    • A single project (all 6 ballots) or split them over
    • Multiple projects. For example:
      • 3 ballots to project X,
      • 2 ballots to project Y, and
      • 1 ballot to project Z
    • Teams will have 30 minutes to visit and distribute their ballots for the “peer award” following the 2 hour judging period.
  3. A free time will follow for open discussions with other attendees and teams.