Guide to Judging: Judging Engineering Notebooks

Last revised on June 30, 2025

Section 5: Judging Engineering Notebooks

Overview: A team’s Engineering Notebook is an original work written and organized by students on the team, and describes a team’s Engineering Design Process over the course of their robotics season. The Engineering Notebook is evaluated using the Engineering Notebook Rubric as a sorting tool, with final rankings done qualitatively by Judges. The Engineering Notebook can take the form of a physical book, or it can be maintained digitally in a number of different formats. The Engineering Notebook provides Judges with valuable information about how team members decided on and developed design ideas over time, and is required for many Judged Awards.

Part 1: The Engineering Notebook: Purpose & Academic Honesty - A Statement for Mentors/Coaches, Students, and Judges

<EN1> The Engineering Notebook serves as a useful tool for the team in the current season, a reference for future teams who may use past notebooks as a resource for solving future design challenges, and as a document that illustrates the team’s journey throughout the season. It is a foundational part of the Design, Innovate, and Excellence Awards, and a requirement for many other awards. A well-executed Engineering Notebook is useful and readable by students and outside observers, such as Judges. Teams should choose a notebook format and system to organize content that best suits their circumstances. The Engineering Notebook is not intended to exist primarily as a “presentation piece” for Judges. It is a place for students to explain their Engineering Design Process throughout the season, in their own words. The best Engineering Notebooks will prove useful to future iterations of the team looking back to see how some engineering problems may have been solved in a previous season, as well as current students to see their growth throughout their journey that season.

<EN2> The Engineering Notebook, as well as the processes students follow to create it, should align with the REC Foundation’s Student-Centered Policy and Code of Conduct. Templates for notebook entries can be a useful tool to help guide younger students as they document their process. However, the end goal should be for students to independently organize and create notebook content. It is never acceptable for adults to contribute materially to the students’ notebook. Adult involvement—including adding content, excessive guidance or direction, “cleaning up” documentation (as an example, an adult rewriting a notebook entry for a student with difficult to read handwriting), or organizing notebook content—is not in alignment with the REC Foundation Student-Centered Policy. A significant part of the educational value of the Engineering Notebook is for students to practice written communication skills, which includes collaboration between students on the team, organizing and synthesizing ideas, and summarizing activities and actions. Judges want to view the students’ own documentation of their process, which may include misspellings, ideas not going as planned, and problem solving as teams evolve their robot design throughout the season.

<EN3> Teams must abide by the principles of academic honesty in their Engineering Notebook, which includes citing and crediting sources of materials and ideas that are not their own. If students find information that is helpful for their design development from any outside source (for example: a website, book, video, or another individual/team) they should properly credit the source of that information and explain how they used it in their design process. The information itself should be placed in an appendix to the Engineering Notebook. Students should not attempt to claim outside information as their own original work and should be mindful of how it is presented in the notebook. Misrepresentation of others’ work is a violation of the REC Foundation Code of Conduct and the Game Manual. If detected, it can lead to a removal of teams from Judged Awards at an event and initiate the Code of Conduct process.

Teams from the same organization that submit notebooks with common content make it extremely difficult for the content to be verified as being representative of the students on each individual team, and may be interpreted as a misrepresentation of student work. Similarly, student programmers who make use of code libraries should cite their sources, explain what they changed and what they utilized, and ensure that they understand the programming they are using. Students should avoid using programs or code that are beyond their ability to create and explain independently.

A number of example notebooks exist as VEX or REC Foundation online resources, or are shared by teams online. While many of these are laudable examples of well written and organized notebooks, teams who learn or take inspiration from them should be careful not to copy content or formats verbatim. Example notebooks should serve as starting points for teams to generate their own formats, styles, and content. Engineering Notebooks are a way for teams to record their own engineering design process. Plagiarizing notebook content is dishonest and does not serve this purpose.

<EN4> The use of artificial intelligence (AI) programs or tools to generate or organize Engineering Notebook content or programming code is contrary to the REC Foundation Student-Centered Policy and Code of Conduct. Content produced by AI from prompts or by building on existing materials does not genuinely represent the skill level of a team that utilizes these tools. REC Foundation programs offer opportunities to learn a variety of technical, organizational, and interpersonal skills. Not all students will have the same levels of competence in these skills, but all students will benefit from the practice and application of those skills as a part of the Engineering Design Process and creation of an Engineering Notebook. The misuse of AI tools, similar to non-student-centered adult involvement, deprives students of opportunities to gain experience at practicing core communication, organization, independent inquiry, and decision-making skills.

<EN5> If Judges become aware of academic dishonesty or other violations of the Student-Centered or Code of Conduct policies, those concerns should be escalated to the Judge Advisor. This may result in the removal of the team from Judged Awards at that event, and should be submitted to the REC Foundation via the Code of Conduct reporting process for further investigation.
Although the Engineering Notebook should be a document produced by the students on the team and not directed or scripted by adults, Coaches/Mentors should be aware of what students put in their Engineering Notebook. Ultimately the robot, team interview, and Engineering Notebook a team present at an event are reflective of the team and the organization to which they belong.

Part 2: The Engineering Notebook & The Design Process

<EN6> REC Foundation programs help students develop life skills that they may use in their academic and professional future. Documenting work in an Engineering Notebook is a widely used engineering and design industry practice. By following the Engineering Design Process and documenting that process in an Engineering Notebook, students practice project management, time management, brainstorming, and interpersonal and written communication skills. The Engineering Design Process is iterative: students identify and define a problem, brainstorm ideas to solve the problem, test their design ideas, and continue to refine their design until a satisfactory solution is reached. Students will encounter obstacles, successes, and setbacks as they work through the Engineering Design Process. All of these should be documented by the students in their Engineering Notebook.

An Engineering Notebook is more than just a log of actions taken. It also includes explanations that illustrate the ‘why’ of choices a team makes as they progress through the stages of the design process as they refine their robot design and programming solution. A great Engineering Notebook communicates a team’s design process clearly and concisely. Engineering Notebooks can vary in length, and the length of a notebook will change throughout the season. A long Engineering Notebook is not necessarily a sign of quality, and a short notebook may still be a complete account of the team’s design process.

Below is a graphic outlining the steps of a simple Engineering Design Process. This process may be expressed in different ways, but forms the overall process that the Engineering Notebook should document:

<EN7> In REC Foundation programs, the Engineering Notebook is required for the Excellence, Design, Innovate, Amaze, Build, Create, and Think Awards, but is not a requirement for other awards. Teams are not required to submit a notebook to receive an in-person interview.

<EN8> Teams may use the physical notebook available from VEX Robotics, or can purchase a different form of physical notebook. Teams may also use an app or cloud-based service, including the templates developed by VEX Robotics, to digitally create and maintain a Digital Engineering Notebook. Please see the section on Remote Judging for more information on Digital Engineering Notebook submissions. Regardless of the format, all notebooks are evaluated by the Judges according to the same award criteria and rubric. These evaluations prioritize content and clarity over sophistication of presentation or notebook length.

<EN9> General Guidelines for Engineering Notebooks

Notebook Formatting

• Team number on the cover / at the beginning of the document
• A table of contents with entries organized for future reference
• Each page/entry is chronologically dated and numbered, starting with the first team meeting
• Each page/entry contains information identifying the student author(s)
• All pages/entries intact; no pages/entries or parts of pages/entries have been removed or omitted; errors can be crossed out using a single line (so they can be seen) rather than erased or removed. It is OK to have grammar or spelling errors!
• Permanently affixed pictures, CAD drawings, documents, examples of code, or other material relevant to the design process (in the case of physical notebooks, tape is acceptable, but glue is preferred)
• Each page/entry is chronologically numbered and accurately dated with when the entry was written
• Notebook has evidence that documentation was done in sequence with the team’s individual design process

Notebook Content

• The notebook provides a complete record of team and project assignments including team meeting notes, goals, decisions, and building/programming accomplishments.
  • Resource constraints including time and materials
  • Descriptions, sketches, and pictures of design concepts and the design process, from initial conception and brainstorming to planning and creation of a final design
  • Observations and thoughts of team members about their design and their design process
  • Records of original tests, original test results, and evaluations of specific designs or design concepts and how these have informed team decisions
  • Project management practices including their use of time, personnel, and financial resources
  • Notes and observations from competitions to consider in the next design iteration
  • Descriptions of programming concepts, programming improvements, or significant programming modifications
  • Enough detail that a person unfamiliar with the team’s work would be able to follow the logic used by the team to develop their design, and recreate the robot design
• Engineering Notebooks can vary in length, and length of the notebook will of course change throughout the season. A longer Engineering Notebook is not necessarily a sign of quality. Likewise, a shorter notebook may still be a complete account of the team’s design process.
• Notebook content is original to the students who wrote it.

<EN10> Notebook Appendices

Any cited content or resource longer than roughly one paragraph should be referenced as an appendix that is attached to the Engineering Notebook. Appendices are not judged, so that references in the Engineering Notebook can be better understood without interrupting the flow of the notebook with excessive content that is not original to the team.

Similarly, teams should also provide iterations of their programming in separate appendices to avoid interrupting the flow of a notebook.

A non-exhaustive list of content that should be located in appendices includes:

• Excerpts taken directly from the Game Manual or other competition resources
• Printouts of iterations of a team’s code
• White papers or other academic research materials
• Non-original content that is referenced by the team

<EN11> Maintaining Engineering Notebook Quality

• In the interest of youth protection, notebooks should not include an abundance of personal details about the students.
• Content should be properly cited/credited.
• Content should not be generated or filtered by generative AI.
• The notebook should not include content that is written, or directed to be written, by anyone who is not a student on the team in the current season.
• The notebook should not include extraneous content that is overly repetitive or that does not meaningfully contribute to the record of the team’s Engineering Design Process.
• All extraneous content is placed in appendices to the Engineering Notebook.
• The notebook does not include content from other teams’ or seasons’ Engineering Notebooks.

<EN12> Notebook Submission Format

The choice of judging format for the event rests with the Event Partner. Detailed information about judging should be included on the event page on RobotEvents.com. All teams at the event must submit their notebooks in the same format, regardless of their notebook’s native format. A team with a physical engineering notebook may need to upload a link to a digital copy via RobotEvents.com, or a team with a digital engineering notebook may be asked to print it out prior to the event.

Whether the notebook is submitted digitally or in person (physical notebook), teams are responsible for their notebook’s formatting and presentation, and must ensure all materials are properly organized—including numbering and/or dating pages.

<EN13> If the Engineering Notebook is written in a language that is not common for the region and Judges fluent in the original language are not available, it is the team’s responsibility to provide the original language version along with a translated copy. This should be brought to the Event Partner’s attention as early as possible so they can inform the Judge Advisor.

<EN14> Different teams may submit notebooks with varying levels of sophistication and beautification. For example, some teams may have brief sketches in pen, others may have color illustrations or CAD/electronic drawings. Judges should evaluate the content of notebooks, not the level of beautification. It is possible for many different types of notebook and different communication styles to present relevant content that explains the design process.

Teams may utilize different methods to organize their Engineering Notebooks. For example, some notebooks may be organized purely chronologically, while others might be organized into subsections based on topic. Depending on the submission format, this may complicate the efforts of Judges to evaluate notebooks. Judges should make every effort to evaluate the contents of the notebook based on the Engineering Notebook Rubric, and not be unduly influenced by the organization methodology chosen by the team, particularly if the submission is not in the native format of the notebook.

<EN15> The confidentiality principle of judging also applies to Engineering Notebooks. Whether notebooks are shared physically or digitally, Judges should not photograph, share, or duplicate information found in Engineering Notebooks or otherwise breach this principle.

<EN16> For digitally submitted notebooks, teams should make every effort to submit their notebook as a .PDF file. This standardized format can generally be opened in a web browser without additional software or logins by remote judges. Teams should also attempt to keep their notebook under 500 MBs in size; larger sizes become a burden to judges to download and view and may be inaccessible on metered internet connections.

Part 3: Notebook Judging

<EN17> Engineering Notebook Handling

Physical Engineering Notebooks are typically collected at team check-in or robot inspection at an event and delivered to the Judge Advisor. Digital Engineering Notebook links must be submitted via RobotEvents.com prior to the event’s posted deadline.

It is not recommended for Judges to collate Engineering Notebooks and rubrics by slipping the rubrics into the notebook. These can be easily forgotten and unintentionally returned to teams, which would violate the confidentiality principle of judging.

Notebooks collected at an event should be returned directly to teams in their pit area or via some other controlled process; it is not recommended that notebooks be left unattended for teams to pick up. This should be done prior to Finals Matches, as some teams may decide to leave prior to the completion of the event.

<EN18> If Engineering Notebooks are submitted digitally and evaluated ahead of the event, Judges MUST also have access to those notebooks during the event to evaluate candidates for awards which require an Engineering Notebook and assist with deliberations and follow-up interviews. This does not necessarily mean Judges at the event will completely re-evaluate all notebooks. Judge access to notebooks is for reference to assist with deliberations and/or followup interviews.

<EN19> Step 1 – Sorting the Engineering Notebooks

Judges perform a quick scan of all the Engineering Notebooks and divide them into two categories: Developing and Fully Developed. If it is unclear whether a notebook should be categorized as Developing or Fully Developed, either another Judge can help make that determination or the notebook should be given the benefit of the doubt and categorized as Fully Developed.

Developing Engineering Notebooks contain little detail, have few drawings, and are not a complete record of the design process. To save Judges’ time, the Engineering Notebook Rubric will not be completed for these teams. However, all Engineering Notebooks should still be retained until the end of judging deliberations.

Fully Developed Engineering Notebooks contain great detail, detailed drawings, tests and test results, and solutions to problems the team encountered. Fully Developed notebooks include a complete record of the design process. Notebook attributes for Fully Developed notebooks may be scored as emerging, proficient, and expert on the Engineering Notebook Rubric. All notebooks with a score of two points or higher in the first four criteria of the Engineering Notebook Rubric should be considered Fully Developed, as this outlines a single iteration of the Engineering Design Process. Only Fully Developed notebooks should be considered for the Innovate, Design, and Excellence Awards. For all other awards requiring a notebook, the notebook should contain content that supports the team interview and award criteria.

The list of Fully Developed Notebooks may be further separated based on their rubric scores, however the final rankings of top notebooks at an event must be qualitative. It is very possible for different Judges to score notebooks differently and for different aspects of the rubric to be emphasized more heavily. As such it is highly recommended for multiple Judges to score each notebook, and that a general consensus identifying top notebooks take precedence over specific rubric scores.

<EN20> Teams may provide links or QR codes to sources such as web pages or videos in their notebook. While these may be useful for the team, and their inclusion should not be discouraged, Judges should NOT investigate these as a part of the Engineering Notebook evaluation. In addition to the security risks of clicking on a link or a QR code to an unknown source, it could take a disproportionate amount of time for Judges to look into that additional content. As such, the content of those links/videos are not considered part of the team’s Engineering Notebook document. Teams are encouraged instead to summarize/describe what is in the link so Judges have some insight into what is contained without having to go outside of the Engineering Notebook document.

<EN21> Step 2 – Completing the Engineering Notebook Rubric

Important: The Engineering Notebook Rubric is a tool for initial team notebook evaluations through quantitative comparison. The final determination of all award candidates and winners is done through further qualitative deliberation among Judges based on award descriptions and criteria. As such, a team earning a particular or overall score on a rubric is not an automatic disqualification or threshold for any Judged Award.

It is recommended (but not required) that the same Judges who interview a set of teams also evaluate those teams’ notebooks. The Engineering Notebook and Team Interview should reflect one another; having the same Judges evaluate both will give them a better understanding of the team and may prove insightful.

Fully Developed notebooks are scored and ranked using the Engineering Notebook Rubric. They may be initially ranked according to their rubric scores, then top notebooks can be re-ranked according to further qualitative evaluation by Judges.

Judges should review the notebook to identify a proficiency level for each of the Engineering Notebook Rubric criteria. There will likely not be enough time to do a page-by-page reading of every notebook.

Judges should focus on the entries associated with the rubric criteria and related proficiency levels to determine scores for each Fully Developed notebook. It is recommended that at least two Judges score each Fully Developed notebook, and the first few notebook scores be discussed so that Judges can “calibrate” scores to be consistent across the event. Having additional Judges score notebooks will provide even better calibration. Further notebook evaluations and interviews may be needed to support the final rankings of the notebooks and interviews during deliberation. The rubric scores are a sorting tool and do not replace a final qualitative ranking of notebooks.

<EN22> Much like Team Interviews, Engineering Notebooks should be evaluated with a standardized time limit for each team. It is recommended judges take no longer than 10-20 minutes to evaluate each notebook. Higher age level events may require more time per notebook. Teams should be aware that if their notebook lacks organization (for example, a table of contents) or contains large amounts of extraneous information, this may negatively impact the Judges’ ability to evaluate the notebook in the time allotted.

<EN23> Notebook Anomalies

The anomalies described below can be indicators that the team’s design decisions are not student directed, the design is not original to the team, or that the Engineering Notebook is not a complete reflection of the student design process. In the absence of direct evidence, teams should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

• “Magic Robots” - Robot designs appear as if spontaneously, with no evidence of a design process. Sometimes this is obscured with a “first design” that does not fully bridge initial concept to final design.
• Entries stop weeks or months before an event with no record of progress, or entries do not begin until after a robot has been built.
• There are no records of failures, ideas that didn’t work, or paths that were explored or considered.
• Entries are crafted to create a specific narrative or story.
• The Engineering Notebook has information that is overly broad and not specific to the team. A notebook may have generic information about different drive trains, for example, but does not explain how the team decided upon and built their own design.
• The notebook contents appear to be a direct copy from another team from within or outside the same organization, contents from a previous season's notebook, or notebooks posted online by other teams.

Continue to the next section, Guide to Judging: Team Interviews