SEED Guide

3.1. SEED Grading Rubric

Piloting with students showed that they felt particular interest in “risk taking” and "boundary crossing" in the SEED Grading Rubric. They felt relieved that their initiative and creativity might be recognized through the rubric and that this evidence, when shared in advance, could help to encourage taking risks and ideating in transdisciplinary contexts. They pointed out the confidence it inspired since design thinking especially requires them to engage fully in exploration, curiosity, and impertinent inquisitiveness. The rubric also includes feasibility (covering implementation challenges, potential obstacles, and practical implementation), market potential (including analysis of the target market (including size and characteristics), the Triple Bottom Line (TBL/3BL) of people, planet, and profit, addressing and solving the challenge using challenge-specific metrics, and novelty, tracing their engagement and performance as they learn to reach for innovation in the context of sustainability.

SEED Grading Rubric

Students will be graded on their groups’ solutions to their sustainability challenge in each module according to the rubric below.

	0 points	1 point	2 points	3 points
Risk-taking: Identification and Reflection	Significant issues are missing; no reflection on the learning experience.	Limited identification of key issues and reflection.	Minor gaps in the key issues, Potential for more exploration of further meaningful reflection	Key entrepreneurship issues precisely articulated. Deep understanding of personal and group learning.
Boundary crossing: Coordination and Transformation	Flawed or no collaboration plans; insights are not actionable strategies.	Some coordination but plans suffer from execution challenges; strategies lack innovation or adaptability.	Potential for effective coordination across boundaries to transform ideas into actionable strategies for sustainable entrepreneurship.	Diverse boundaries, coordinated and transformed; coordinated collaboration plans; learning applied to real-world scenarios with innovative thinking and adaptability.
Feasibility	Solutions lack practicality and feasibility; implementation challenges not addressed at all.	Limited consideration of feasibility; significant implementation challenges unaddressed.	Some aspects of feasibility considered, but significant implementation challenges remain unaddressed.	Well-thought-out and feasible solutions proposed, considering potential obstacles and practical implementation.
Market potential	Limited understanding of the target market and its potential.	Some understanding of the target market, but minimal exploration of market potential.	Some understanding of the target market, but market potential not fully explored or articulated.	Strong analysis of the target market (including size and characteristics) and market potential for the proposed solution.
Triple Bottom Line	People, planet and profit not considered.	Limited attention to one or two of the three bottom lines.	All three bottom lines addressed, but with incomplete or superficial analysis.	All three bottom lines addressed with thorough and well-researched analysis.
Addressing and solving the challenge	Insufficient consideration of challenge-specific metrics; lack of relevance to the presented challenge.	Minimal attention to challenge-specific metrics; limited relevance or depth.	Some attention to challenge-specific metrics, but limited relevance or depth.	Comprehensive and insightful analysis of challenge-specific metrics directly related to the presented solution to the sustainability challenge.
Novelty	Lack of originality: ideas presented are common or unremarkable.	Limited originality: ideas lack creativity or uniqueness.	Moderate level of originality: some creative ideas presented.	Highly original: demonstrates a fresh perspective.