Robotics Guide to Judging: Judging Engineering Notebooks – RECF Library

Section 5: Judging Engineering Notebooks

5.1 Overview

A team’s engineering notebook is an original work written and organized by students on the team, and describes their engineering design process over the course of a season. The engineering notebook is evaluated using the Engineering Notebook Rubric as a sorting tool, with final rankings done qualitatively by judges. An engineering notebook can be a physical or digital document, and is required for many judged awards. A team’s notebook and interview should be mutually supportive of one another.

Note: RECF Inspire does not follow the guidelines outlined in this section. Please see the RECF Inspire Judging Process for more information.

5.2 Engineering Notebook Purpose & Academic Honesty

5.2.1 Engineering Notebook Purpose

An engineering notebook is a resource for the team’s current season, a reference for future seasons, and a record of the team’s use of the engineering design process. It should describe the team’s decisions and work in their own words. By following the iterative engineering design process—identifying a problem, brainstorming solutions, testing ideas, and refining their robot design—students encounter obstacles, successes, and setbacks that they should fully document. A strong engineering notebook goes beyond logging actions to explain the reasoning behind team decisions. The graphic below shows a simple engineering design process.

5.2.2 Entries Shouldn’t Be Revised

Teams should not edit or replace old entries or create revised versions of content for specific events. New content should be created and added in parallel with the design process throughout the season. The notebook should be the team’s authentic documentation, including misspellings, unsuccessful ideas, and real problem-solving as the design evolves.

5.2.3 Content Should be Created by Student Team Members

The engineering notebook must align with the RECF Student-Centered Policy and Code of Conduct. Templates can guide younger students, but the goal is for students to independently organize and produce their own content. Adult involvement—such as adding content, rewriting entries, excessive direction, “cleaning up,” or organizing the notebook—is not permitted.

Teams should not use artificial intelligence / large language model (AI/LLM) programs or tools to generate, organize, enhance, or alter engineering notebook content.

The RECF Library includes several resources to guide teams as they create their engineering notebooks, and includes suggestions for formatting and organization.

5.2.4 Outside Ideas Must be Credited

Teams must properly cite and credit all outside sources (e.g., websites, books, videos, or other teams/individuals) of materials or ideas. Notebook entries should describe how the idea or material was used, and the original content can be placed in an appendix as needed. Teams can include links or QR codes to external sources such as webpages or videos in their engineering notebook for their own reference, but judges should NOT access or evaluate them as part of the notebook review.

Teams from the same organization should not submit notebooks with shared or common content, as this makes it difficult to verify individual teams’ work. Other teams’ notebooks should be used solely for inspiration; teams must develop their own original formats, styles, and content.

5.2.5 Academic Dishonesty is a Violation of the RECF Code of Conduct

Claiming the work of others violates the RECF Code of Conduct and game manuals and may result in removal from judged awards and initiation of the Code of Conduct process as described in section 2.12.

5.3 Engineering Notebook Format and Contents

5.3.1 Notebook Formats

Team members are responsible for their notebook’s formatting, presentation, and organization, including numbering and/or dating all pages. Loose pages are not permitted, except for the Innovate Award Submission Form. Content and clarity is more important than sophistication of presentation or notebook length.

5.3.2 Notes on Engineering Notebook Content

Most notebooks will have similar formats and contents based on the criteria in the Engineering Notebook Rubric, but there are some things judges should consider when reviewing notebooks.

The notebook should clearly show the team number.
A descriptive table of contents can help identify entries and/or design process steps.
Entries shouldn’t be edited retroactively.
The notebook should follow a team’s progress through a season.
Content should be created by students on the team for the current season, and not copy/pasted from other teams’ or seasons’ notebooks.
Content should be properly cited/credited.
Content should not be generated or filtered by generative AI.
Content should meaningfully contribute to the record of the team’s engineering design process.
All extraneous content, cited content, or external resources (e.g., game manual excerpts, code printouts, white papers, other teams’ test results) longer than roughly one paragraph should be limited to appendices. Judges are not expected to review the content in appendices.

5.3.3 Notebook Language

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 and possibly find judges who are fluent.

5.3.4 Notebook Presentation and Length

Judges should evaluate the content of notebooks, not its length or how the information is presented. It is possible for many different types of notebook and different communication styles to present relevant content that explains the design process. Judges should make every effort to evaluate the contents of the notebook based on the Engineering Notebook Rubric, particularly if the submission is not in the native format of the notebook (e.g., a physical notebook that was scanned for a digital submission).

5.4 Notebook Submission and Handling

5.4.1 Notebook Submission Formats

The event partner determines the judging format for their event, and communicates the required format through the event page at RECFEvents.org. All teams must submit their notebooks in the chosen format, regardless of the notebook’s native format. Teams with physical notebooks may be asked to upload a digital copy (PDFs under 250MB are preferred), while teams with digital notebooks may need to print them prior to the event.

If engineering notebooks are submitted digitally and evaluated before the event, judges must still have access to them during the event to support follow-up interviews and deliberations for awards that require notebooks. Judges are not expected to fully re-evaluate these notebooks.

Regardless of the format, all notebooks are evaluated by the judges according to the same award criteria and rubric.

5.4.2 Notebooks are Required for Some Awards

In the RECF Engage & Achieve programs, the engineering notebook is required for the Excellence, Design, Innovate, Think , Amaze, Build, and Create Awards, but is not a requirement for other awards. Teams are not required to submit a notebook to receive an in-person interview.

5.4.3 Handling Notebooks

Physical engineering notebooks are typically collected at team check-in or robot inspection at an event and delivered to the judge advisor. Digital engineering notebooks must be submitted via RECFEvents.org prior to the event’s posted deadline.

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/elimination matches, as some teams may decide to leave prior to the completion of the event.

5.5 Assessing and Ranking Engineering Notebooks

5.5.1 Sorting Engineering Notebooks

Judges perform a quick assessment 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, they should get another opinion or categorize it as fully developed.
- Developing engineering notebooks contain little detail, have few drawings, and are not a complete record of the design process. These notebooks don’t need to be scored on the Engineering Notebook Rubric, but should remain in the judges room until all notebooks are returned to teams.
- Fully developed engineering notebooks contain a complete record of the team’s design process, including complete and detailed drawings, test results, problems descriptions and chosen solutions.

5.5.2 Completing Engineering Notebook Rubrics

Judges score the fully developed notebook using the Engineering Notebook Rubric.
- If possible, the same judges who review a team’s notebooks should be assigned to complete that team’s interview. 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.
- Judges should assign a proficiency level for each rubric criterion by focusing on relevant entries rather than reading every page.
- It is recommended that each notebook be scored at least twice, ideally by judge pairs (often the same pairs that conducted the initial interviews) so that experienced judges may help train new judges and will help in finding relevant content in the notebook. The first few notebooks should be discussed together to calibrate scoring across judge pairs.
- 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.
- Rubric scores serve as a sorting tool but do not replace final qualitative judgment. The final determination of all award candidates and winners is done through further qualitative deliberation among judges based on award descriptions and criteria.
Any notebook that does not earn a score of two points or higher in all of the first four criteria of the rubric should be removed from consideration for the Innovate, Design, and Excellence Awards. For RECF Engage events (especially elementary), this threshold may be lowered to one point as students are still learning documentation fundamentals.
Judges can initially rank teams by their notebook rubric scores.
Final rankings of top notebooks must be determined qualitatively. Because judges may score notebooks differently, it is strongly recommended that multiple judges review each notebook and that overall consensus takes precedence over exact rubric scores.

5.5.3 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. Anomalies should be reported to the judge advisor for further consideration. For borderline cases, teams should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Robot designs appear 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 other paths that were explored or considered.
Entries appear to have been 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