Designing Rubrics to Assess Engineering Design, Professional Practice, and Communication Over Three Years of Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When using rubric-based assessment of students’ understanding of design process in project based courses, it is important to provide specific feedback for major design process elements while avoiding overly prescriptive descriptors [8]. This paper details the development process of a sequence of rubrics used for assessment in successive second, third and fourth year project-based courses. A major consideration in the rubric development process was to ensure the alignment of assessment with course learning outcomes that can be easily mapped to the CEAB graduate attribute accreditation requirements. In the second year course, the rubrics are used to provide students with directed feedback as they learn the basics of engineering design process. The third and fourth year rubrics progress from the second year analytic rubrics by employing elements of holistic assessment. The purpose of evolving these rubrics year over year is to find a balance between the students’ learning and development in design process whilst accommodating variation in projects. This ultimatelyprovides students with greater flexibility and encourages responsibility as they progress through their program.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it