Landmark Project KTCA Rubric
The Landmark Project is assessed using Knowledge, Thinking, Communication, and Application. Each category is worth 25%.
Assessment is based on the complete body of evidence: the final Tinkercad model, the single three-part Landmark Notion entry, planning, daily peer feedback, revisions, submitted files, the fly-through, and work observed during class.
| Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1 — Low | Demonstrates limited achievement of the project expectations. |
| 2 — Developing | Demonstrates some achievement, but important gaps or inconsistencies remain. |
| 3 — Meeting | Demonstrates clear and consistent achievement of the project expectations. |
| 4 — Exceeding | Demonstrates thorough, effective, and independent achievement that exceeds the project expectations. |
🧠 Knowledge — 25%
Understanding of Tinkercad tools, modelling concepts, measurement, terminology, file formats, and 3D-printing principles
Evidence may include accurate use and explanation of shapes, holes, alignment, grouping, duplication, dimensions, scale, proportion, workplane orientation, connections, overhangs, thickness, STL/OBJ files, and printability checks.
| Level | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 1 — Low | Demonstrates limited or inaccurate understanding of Tinkercad tools, measurement, scale, proportion, file formats, and printability. Uses little appropriate terminology and requires substantial support to explain the process. |
| 2 — Developing | Demonstrates partial understanding of the main tools and concepts. Some explanations, measurements, or printability decisions are correct, but important gaps or misconceptions remain. Uses some appropriate terminology. |
| 3 — Meeting | Demonstrates clear understanding of the tools and concepts needed for the project. Uses appropriate terminology and accurately explains how modelling, measurement, file, and printability decisions support the landmark. |
| 4 — Exceeding | Demonstrates thorough and independent understanding. Selects and combines tools strategically, explains both how and why techniques were used, and makes precise connections among geometry, scale, proportion, file preparation, and successful printing. |
💡 Thinking — 25%
Research, planning, creative and critical thinking, decision-making, problem-solving, and refinement
Evidence may include reference selection, defining-feature analysis, three-view sketches, shape decomposition, criteria, planned dimensions, purposeful simplification, anticipating printability risks, solving challenges, and responding to peer feedback each day.
| Level | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 1 — Low | Planning and research are incomplete, unclear, or minimally connected to the final model. Decisions appear rushed or arbitrary. Identifies few challenges and makes limited use of feedback or evidence when solving problems. |
| 2 — Developing | Provides basic research and planning, but some defining features, measurements, criteria, or construction steps are underdeveloped. Attempts to solve problems and respond to feedback, though decisions are not always supported by evidence. |
| 3 — Meeting | Uses relevant research and organized planning to guide the model. Identifies defining features, establishes useful criteria, anticipates challenges, simplifies purposefully, and uses evidence and daily peer feedback to make logical refinements. |
| 4 — Exceeding | Uses detailed research and highly purposeful planning to guide an original interpretation. Anticipates technical and design challenges, evaluates alternatives, justifies simplifications and proportions, and uses strong evidence and feedback to make insightful refinements throughout the process. |
💬 Communication — 25%
Clarity, specificity, organization, and completeness of the design process—demonstrated primarily through the Landmark Notion entry
The single three-part Notion entry should make the project understandable from planning through final submission. Evidence includes written recaps, reflection responses, cited references, sketches, screenshots, measurement evidence, questions, daily peer feedback and responses, before-and-after comparisons, the fly-through, and submitted files.
| Level | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 1 — Low | The Notion entry is incomplete, vague, difficult to follow, or missing major required evidence. Explanations mostly state what was done without explaining decisions, learning, feedback, or changes. Sources and files may be unclear or missing. |
| 2 — Developing | The Notion entry includes some required sections and evidence, but detail, organization, or clarity is inconsistent. Explains parts of the process, though some decisions, feedback responses, reflections, sources, or progress evidence remain unclear or incomplete. |
| 3 — Meeting | The Notion entry is complete, organized, specific, and supported by appropriate evidence across all three days. Clearly explains tools, decisions, challenges, feedback responses, revisions, and learning. Sources, screenshots, files, and the fly-through are labelled and easy to understand. |
| 4 — Exceeding | The Notion entry provides an exceptionally clear, detailed, and coherent account of the complete process. Thoughtful reflection and carefully selected evidence reveal how research, decisions, challenges, feedback, technical learning, and revisions shaped the final result. Documentation is polished and independently understandable. |
🛠️ Application — 25%
Technical execution, controlled use of Tinkercad, quality of the final model, printability, refinement, and correct submission
Evidence may include recognizability, scale and proportion, purposeful simplification, controlled construction, clean grouping and alignment, connected parts, stable orientation, manageable overhangs, practical thicknesses, revisions, final files, and the fly-through.
| Level | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 1 — Low | The model is incomplete or difficult to recognize and shows limited technical control. Major problems with construction, scale, proportion, connections, orientation, or printability remain. Required final files or evidence may be unusable or missing. |
| 2 — Developing | The model is partly recognizable and demonstrates some technical control, but construction, proportion, detail, refinement, or printability is inconsistent. Some technical problems remain or submission requirements are only partly complete. |
| 3 — Meeting | The model is complete, recognizable, proportionally thoughtful, and realistically printable. Tinkercad tools are used with control, defining features are represented effectively, feedback produces meaningful refinement, and all required files and evidence are submitted correctly. |
| 4 — Exceeding | The model is highly recognizable, carefully proportioned, cleanly constructed, and efficiently designed for printing. Tools and techniques are applied precisely and independently; simplification preserves identity; technical risks are resolved thoughtfully; and refinements noticeably strengthen the final result and submission quality. |
Final check before submission
- All three parts of the Landmark Notion entry are complete.
- Peer feedback and your response are recorded for each project day.
- Planning, sources, measurements, progress, and revisions are visible.
- The final model is original, recognizable, complete, and realistically printable.
- The final screenshot, fly-through, and STL or approved OBJ package are submitted.
Curriculum connections
A1.1–A1.7: Apply concepts, research, planning, communication, criteria, and project-management thinking.
A2.1–A2.7: Manage, create, document, select resources, use tools, and measure accurately.
A3.1–A3.5: Address challenges, analyze performance, refine the model, and communicate decisions.
B1.1/B3.4: Connect design decisions to context and evaluate transferable skills and growth.