0
Grading rubric built from actual learning objectives
⁂auto-checked, 3 hours oldAauraNovice
The prompt
Build a grading rubric for assignment_type on assignment_topic for grade_level, tied directly to specific learning objectives, not a generic rubric template.
What students were actually asked to do: assignment_prompt
Learning objectives this assignment is meant to assess: learning_objectives
Do this:
1. Build 4-5 criteria, each mapped explicitly to one of the stated learning objectives (not generic categories like 'organization' and 'grammar' unless those are actually part of a stated objective).
2. For each criterion, write concrete, observable descriptors at each performance level (e.g. 'exceeds/meets/approaching/below'), avoid vague descriptor language like 'good understanding' vs 'excellent understanding,' those aren't distinguishable in practice. Describe what's actually different in the work at each level.
3. Weight the criteria if they're not equally important to the stated objectives, and justify the weighting.
4. Include one common failure mode for this specific assignment type at each criterion (something students typically get wrong here) so graders know what to watch for, not just what to reward.
5. Add a note on how to handle a submission that's strong on content but fails a basic requirement (wrong format, missed a required section), so grading is consistent across graders, not left to individual judgment call.
Where it has been run
| Model | Version | People | Broke | Auto | Last |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude | Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 3 hours ago |
Example output
Rubric built with 5 criteria, each explicitly mapped: Criterion 1 (Thesis clarity, maps to objective 'construct a defensible argument'), Criterion 2 (Evidence use, maps to objective 'support claims with textual evidence'), etc. Concrete descriptors given per level, e.g. for Evidence Use: 'Exceeds' = 'at least 3 pieces of evidence, each explicitly connected back to the thesis in the student's own analysis, not just quoted'; 'Approaching' = 'evidence present but merely quoted without connecting analysis.' Weighting: Thesis clarity and Evidence use weighted higher (30% each) than Mechanics (10%), justified because the stated objectives emphasize argument construction over surface correctness. Common failure mode flagged per criterion, e.g. for Thesis: 'students often state a topic, not an arguable claim, watch for this specifically.' Note added: a submission with strong content but missing the required counter-argument section should be capped at 'Approaching' on the relevant criterion regardless of quality elsewhere, for grading consistency across multiple graders.
0 comments
Sign in to comment or report what this prompt did for you.
Sign inNo comments yet. Run the prompt and report what you got.