How this is scored
Five stages, the engineering design process, the same five on every project in this course. Plus one separate score for the toy itself.
Two kinds of score
Stages 1 through 4 are team scores. They judge shared work — your notebook, your CAD, your test prints, your iteration record. Everyone on the team gets the same number.
Stage 5 is yours alone. Same presentation, individual scores. Two people on the same team can walk away with different numbers on Communicate, and that is the design, not a mistake.
How this matches the six-step process. Pick a Solution is scored inside Research and Brainstorm. Test and Evaluate is scored as Iterate.
Your daily work — safety, cleanup, effort, organization — isn't scored here at all. That lives in the daily standards.
Define the Problem
Do you understand what BrightSpark asked for?
Restates the client's ask in your own words: who the toy is for and what it does. Names every constraint — size, print budget, materials, no tape or sanding, modular — and identifies which one limits your design the most. States what "it works" means for your toy.
Repeats the brief accurately but without interpretation. Constraints are listed, not weighed. The toy's purpose or its success test is vague.
The problem is stated vaguely or incorrectly. Constraints are missing. No clear idea of what the toy has to do.
Research and Brainstorm
Did you look at real toys, and generate real options?
Research on real toys, joints, and materials, each with a note on what it means for your design. Many different toy ideas, then labeled sketches of the best ones in more than one view. Ideas that break a constraint are crossed off with the reason. The design questions are answered. The final choice is made with a decision matrix and explained.
Research is collected but not tied to the design. Sketches exist but show one idea, skip the size, or don't show how parts connect. The choice is made by feel, or isn't explained.
Little research. One rough sketch, or sketches made after the CAD was already done.
Prototype
Is the CAD complete, and was it designed for the printer?
A complete Onshape model — every part plus the assembly, fully constrained and dimensioned, with correct mates — that matches the toy you built. Clearances designed in on purpose, in a variable. Print orientation planned. Follows the design rules: few or no supports, no droopy overhangs, walls and pins above the minimums. Size and weight checked in CAD. Explains at least one decision made because of a design rule.
The model works but has gaps — an unconstrained sketch, a missing mate, a clearance guessed rather than tested, or parts that need heavy supports. Size or weight not checked until printing.
Incomplete or unassembled model. No clearances, parts that can't print as drawn, or CAD that doesn't match the toy.
Iterate
Test and evaluate: did you test early and change things on purpose?
Clearances checked on the Tolerance Blocks, and test pieces printed before full parts. At least two documented changes, each with a photo, the problem, the suspected cause, the change with numbers, and the result. Includes one change that didn't work and what it taught you. Running weight total kept against the budget.
Changes are documented but reasons are general, or several things changed at once. Only successful changes reported. No test pieces — straight to full parts.
Printed once. Problems fixed by sanding, tape, or feel, with no record — or not fixed at all.
Communicate
The 5–7 minute presentation. Scored per student.
Walks through the design journey and key decisions. Demos the CAD and the toy, live or recorded. Explains the choice of materials, joints, and clearances using a specific number or design rule. Shares a real lesson and an idea for improvement. Answers a follow-up question about a part they didn't personally design. Fits in 5–7 minutes.
Describes what the team did, but justifications are general — "it fit better," "we liked it" — or limited to their own part. No demo, or lessons are vague. Runs well over or under time.
Reports what happened without explaining why, or defers questions to teammates.
What "a specific number or design rule" sounds like
This is the line between a 3 and a 5 on Communicate, so here it is out loud.
A 3: "The wheels were too tight, so we made the holes bigger and now they spin."
A 5: "Our wheels bound once every turn. The axle hole was printing sideways, so the top drooped into the hole. We changed it to a teardrop and raised our clearance from 0.1 to 0.2 mm — that's wheel version 3. It spins freely now, and the whole car is 78 grams, under the 100-gram budget."
The toy is scored too
Separate from the five stages, the finished toy gets its own team score at your presentation. A brilliantly documented toy that doesn't quite work still scores well on the rubric — but it won't score well here.
Built to Spec
Does it move, and does it meet the brief?
Moves the way it was designed to, again and again, in someone else's hands. Fits the 6 × 4 × 4 in box. Under 100 g. Every part is printed PLA or TPU, and every joint holds with no tape and no sanding. Parts come apart to be replaced.
Works, with minor issues — a sticky joint, a wheel that wobbles, a part that needs holding in place. Or it misses one constraint by a little.
Barely moves, or only when you hold it just right. Taped, sanded to fit, or clearly over size or budget.