DESIGNATHON RUBRIC

OUTSTANDING 20 pts STRONG 15 pts ADEQUATE 10 pts LIMITED 5 pts MISSING 0 pts
Aesthetic OUTSTANDING:
Demonstrates distinct, aesthetic principles and expresses thoughtful insights about the connections between
an artistic appeal/unique style and a theme of the design. STRONG:
Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of artistic techniques and an ability to apply techniques and aesthetic principles in the creation of the design with considerable technical competence. ADEQUATE:
Demonstrates a basic understanding and an ability to apply techniques and aesthetic principles in the creation of the design with good technical competence. LIMITED:
Demonstrates some understanding while lacking the ability to apply techniques and aesthetic principles in the creation of the design, but understanding and/or technical competence of basic techniques is clearly still developing. MISSING:
Demonstrates low quality or no artistic appeal is shown.
Feasibility/ Budget OUTSTANDING:
Extremely feasible, meaning the cost to construct the design is reasonable and completely possible, and the materials are easily attainable. Retrieving these materials will cost little to zero environmental harm or any other possible complications. STRONG:
Feasible for well funded organizations. The design accounts for minimal damage to the environment that can be outweighed by its benefits. There are more pros than cons about this creation. ADEQUATE:
The designed playground might pose some damage to the environment, and the cost to build it is somewhat manageable. LIMITED:
Limited possibility to construct the playground as it is too costly to implement or may cause multiple direct/ indirect environmental harm; may require further in-depth research on large funding. MISSING: Inefficient design that is impossible to implement as it is too costly and scientifically and environmentally impossible (the location).
Appeal to Children OUTSTANDING:
A remarkable design of the park, which features exceptional elements: color choices, size, walking paths, and safety. This park design is not overly complicated. STRONG:
A favorable design of the park that features proper elements: slides, stairs, poles, monkey bars, bridges, size, ropes, and safety. This park design is to some degree over complicated. ADEQUATE:
Average design of the park; thus, identical to existing playgrounds. However, exhibits the necessary parts of the playground (slides, stairs, poles, monkey bars, bridges) to please the children. LIMITED:
Minimal understanding and decent design of the park, features include some slides and stairs, but limited creativity. MISSING:
Work done with no care or attention to detail or neatness of the fun elements. Lacks understanding of project requirements.
Safety OUTSTANDING:
Clarifies how the design covers safety measures and precautions for children (5-12). All the materials are valid and the design provided detailed procedures. STRONG:
All of the materials and procedures are documented for standard safety conduct, and a modern/practical data was illustrated in the safety of the design. ADEQUATE:
Most of the materials and procedures are documented for standard safety conduct, and a plausible amount of data regarding the safety of the design is recorded. LIMITED:
Some of the materials and procedures are documented for standard safety conduct, and insufficient data regarding the safety of the design is recorded. MISSING:
All the materials and procedures are not documented for standard safety conduct, and data are haphazardly recorded.
Creativity OUTSTANDING:
Exceptional approach to the design as complete originality is clearly shown; the participant shows a robust understanding of how to design a playground that is not only aesthetically pleasing, functional, safe, but also unique. (Examples of uniqueness include but not limited to: new recreation activities, safe alternatives to activities for young kids to play with.) STRONG:
The participant incorporates mostly original aspects to the design. The contestant shows a good understanding of the concept of building a playground that is (missing one or more of the following)
  1. Aesthetically pleasing
  2. Functional
  3. Safe
  4. Uniqueness | ADEQUATE: Somewhat innovative as the creativity aspects of the design are feasible and special, but still mostly includes concepts from existing playgrounds. | LIMITED: Some aspects of the design are original, but basic and scientifically impossible to implement. The participants mostly reuse existing designs. | MISSING: Generic design: looks very similar to existing playgrounds. There is no creative or original aspect to the design. | | Sustainability | OUTSTANDING: Innovative and exceptional approach to incorporating sustainable features into the design. These might include solar panels, recycled surface materials, synthetic turf, rubber mulch, etc. | STRONG: The participant shows a good effort to incorporate eco-friendly aspects to the playground. | ADEQUATE: The participant shows 2-3 examples of incorporating eco-friendly urban planning into the playground. Some may be ineffective. | LIMITING: The participant shows 1-2 examples of sustainability, or they are either not impactful or not functional. | MISSING: The participant makes no effort to incorporate sustainability in their playground design. | | Total: (Out of 120) | | | | | | | Judge Name: | | | | | |