Implementation and Effect of Rubrics in Capstone Design Courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates the implementation of a two-dimensional rubric system into capstone-level design courses as the preferred method for assigning and evaluating students’ design work. The rubric is based on the ICE (Ideas, Connections, and Extensions) learning and application levels, having been expanded from the basic one-dimensional rubric into two dimensions to further resolve each rank (level of application) into skill levels of learning of a given concept (i.e., a design project element), with qualitative descriptors summarizing the requirements for each skill level versus rank coordinate in the rubric that an element is applied to justify the assigned grade. These rubrics provide guidance to students in how to address the design requirements for maximum possible marks and also assist instructors with clearly defining the design requirements. The developed rubrics are applicable to other upper year undergraduate and graduate level courses featuring a major design project with minor modifications. Their usefulness was evident in the observed improvement of students’ grades over the last three years. For capstone courses, a multi-dimensional rubric is more versatile, providing instructors with a greater choice of assigning grade levels to evaluate student performance for a given element of the design project.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".