WAICY 2024 Rubrics
| Artificial Intelligence Criteria (50%) | Needs Improvement (0-7 points) | Satisfactory (8-13 points) | Above Average (14-19 points) | Outstanding (20-25 points) | Points (Maximum 25 each) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence | It is unclear how or if the project uses AI; team members unable to speak to the AI abilities of their solution | The project utilizes AI to solve a problem; shows basic understanding of the Five Big Ideas | Project shows a thorough understanding of the Five Big Ideas and how they relate to the problem | Project demonstrates a superb understanding of the Five Big Ideas and leverages AI’s unique abilities to tackle the problem at hand | /25 |
| Technical Skills | Little to no understanding of the technical aspect of the solution | Some technical understanding; if the project doesn’t involve coding, the team understands how it would be done if implemented | Good technical understanding and execution | Mastery of software development and execution; solution is elegant and efficient | /25 |
| Design & Impact Criteria (50%) |
Needs Improvement (0-2 points) | Satisfactory (3-5 points) | Above Average (6-8 points) | Outstanding (9-10 points) | Points (Maximum 10 each) |
| Problem Statement | The project is not aligned with a problem statement and/or does not demonstrate relevance for the community | The project addresses a clear problem statement, but may not address needs that are nationally or locally meaningful | The project addresses a clear problem statement; the team can describe how their solution creates a meaningful outcome | The project addresses a problem of national or local importance; the team can articulate the meaningful impact on multiple fronts | /10 |
| Design | Little to no design considerations given to the visual and auditory aspects of the project | Use of some visual and auditory design | Good use of visual and auditory design; creates a positive user experience | Creative use of visual and auditory design; careful thought is given to the user experience of the proposed AI solution | /10 |
| AI Ethics | Little to no consideration given to the positive and negative impacts of the solution | Some consideration is given to the positive and negative impacts of the solution | Careful consideration is clearly given to the solution from its design to implementation | Careful consideration is clearly given to the solution from its design to implementation; the team takes into account unintended consequences | /10 |
| Presentation and Communication |
Poor delivery; the presenter lacks clarity during the presentation and could not answer questions to a satisfactory extent in Q&A | Presenter delivers information in a way that is not always clear, concise and logical; presenters speaks clearly and loudly enough; answers in Q&A were satisfactory | Presenter is well prepared and delivers ideas in a clear and concise manner most of the time; answers in Q&A were satisfactory | Presenter is very well prepared and delivers ideas in a clear, concise, and enthusiastic manner; gave thoughtful answers in Q&A | /10 |
| Originality & Creativity | Project is not original | Project shows good attempt at originality and creativity | Project distinguishes own original contribution from that of others | Project is unique and demonstrates an exciting and fresh idea | /10 |
| Artificial Intelligence & Artistic Criteria (50%) | Needs Improvement (0-7 points) | Satisfactory (8-13 points) | Above Average (14-19 points) | Outstanding (20-25 points) | Points (Maximum 25 each) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence & Technical Proficiency | It is unclear how or if the project uses AI; team members unable to speak to the AI abilities of their solution | The project ultilizes AI to solve a problem; shows basic understanding of the AI-Generated Art Tool | Project shows a thorough understanding of the AI tool | Project demonstrates a superb understanding of the AI Tool and leverages AI’s unique abilities to tackle the problem at hand | /25 |
| Technical Skills | The artwork lacks creativity and originality. | The artwork shows some creativity and effort but lacks a strong original concept. | The artwork demonstrates a good level of creativity and originality. | The artwork is highly creative, unique, and presents an exciting and fresh idea. | /25 |
| Design & Impact Criteria (50%) |
Needs Improvement (0-2 points) | Satisfactory (3-5 points) | Above Average (6-8 points) | Outstanding (9-10 points) | Points (Maximum 10 each) |
| Problem Statement | The project is not aligned with a idea statement | The project addresses a basic idea statement | The project addresses a clear clear statement | The project addresses an outstanding idea statement | /10 |
| Iteration Explaination | The project is not aligned with a iteration explaination | The project addresses a clear iteration explaination | The project addresses a clear iteration explaination; the team can describe how they use multiple iterations to create a meaningful outcome | The project addresses a outstanding iteration explaination; the team can articulate the detailed process on multiple fronts | /10 |
| Alignment with Theme | The artwork does not align with the chosen theme or lacks relevance. | The artwork somewhat aligns with the theme but may lack a clear connection. | The artwork aligns well with the chosen theme and demonstrates a clear connection. | The artwork perfectly aligns with the theme, providing a compelling interpretation. | /10 |
| Presentation and Communication |
Poor delivery; the presenter lacks clarity during the presentation and could not answer questions to a satisfactory extent in Q&A | Presenter delivers information in a way that is not always clear, concise and logical; presenters speaks clearly and loudly enough; answers in Q&A were satisfactory | Presenter is well prepared and delivers ideas in a clear and concise manner most of the time; answers in Q&A were satisfactory | Presenter is very well prepared and delivers ideas in a clear, concise, and enthusiastic manner; gave thoughtful answers in Q&A | /10 |
| Originality & Creativity | Project is not original | Project shows good attempt at originality and creativity | Project distinguishes own original contribution from that of others | Project is unique and demonstrates an exciting and fresh idea | /10 |
| Artificial Intelligence Criteria (50%) | Needs Improvement (0-7 points) | Satisfactory (8-13 points) | Above Average (14-19 points) | Outstanding (20-25 points) | Points (Maximum 25 each) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specific AI Service | The AI service’s specific function and purpose are unclear. | The AI service provides a basic description of its function and purpose. | The AI service offers a clear and concise description of its core functionality. | The AI service provides a highly detailed and well-defined explanation of its specific function and purpose. | /25 |
| Iterative Development | Limited or no evidence of an iterative development process. | Some evidence of an iterative development process with minimal details. | Clear evidence of an iterative development process, including idea evolution, prompt refinement, and experimental results. | An exemplary and well-documented iterative development process that includes thorough details, such as idea evolution, prompt refinement, and comprehensive experimental results. | /25 |
| Design & Impact Criteria (50%) |
Needs Improvement (0-2 points) | Satisfactory (3-5 points) | Above Average (6-8 points) | Outstanding (9-10 points) | Points (Maximum 10 each) |
| Motivation & Problem Statement | The motivation behind developing the AI service is unclear or not well-defined. | Some explanation is given for the motivation behind developing the AI service. | The team provides a clear explanation of why the AI service was developed and what inspired its creation. | The team offers a compelling and comprehensive explanation of the motivation behind the AI service, including inspiring factors. | /10 |
| Limitations & Considerations | Little to no discussion of limitations or ethical considerations. | Some discussion of limitations and ethical considerations. | A clear and thoughtful discussion of limitations and ethical considerations. | An exceptional discussion that thoroughly addresses limitations and ethical considerations, including potential unintended consequences. | /10 |
| Future Development & Clear Reference | Limited or no plans for future development or improvement. The conclusion lacks clarity and does not effectively summarize key points. | Some mention of future development plans. The conclusion provides a basic summary of key points. | Well-defined plans for future development and improvement. The conclusion effectively summarizes key points discussed | Comprehensive and innovative plans for future development that address limitations and enhance the AI service’s capabilities. An outstanding conclusion that concisely and eloquently summarizes key points and underscores the significance and potential impact of the AI service. | /10 |
| Presentation and Communication |
Poor delivery; the presenter lacks clarity during the presentation and could not answer questions to a satisfactory extent in Q&A | Presenter delivers information in a way that is not always clear, concise and logical; presenters speaks clearly and loudly enough; answers in Q&A were satisfactory | Presenter is well prepared and delivers ideas in a clear and concise manner most of the time; answers in Q&A were satisfactory | Presenter is very well prepared and delivers ideas in a clear, concise, and enthusiastic manner; gave thoughtful answers in Q&A | /10 |
| Originality & Creativity | Project is not original | Project shows good attempt at originality and creativity | Project distinguishes own original contribution from that of others | Project is unique and demonstrates an exciting and fresh idea | /10 |