Evaluation Rubric
Your team's policy briefing will be assessed using the following rubric:
| Criterion | Excellent (4 points) | Good (3 points) | Sufficient (2 points) | Insufficient (1 point) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contextualization & Ethical Analysis | Demonstrates deep understanding of AI's ethical risks, contextualizing them effectively. Analysis is nuanced, insightful, and considers multiple perspectives thoroughly. | Demonstrates good understanding of AI's ethical risks and provides adequate context. Analysis is clear and considers key perspectives. | Shows basic understanding of AI's ethical risks with some context. Analysis is present but may lack depth or consideration of multiple viewpoints. | Shows limited or inaccurate understanding of ethical risks. Context is missing or unclear. Analysis is superficial or absent. |
| Argument Strength & Regulatory Understanding | Presents compelling, well-supported arguments for/against regulation. Shows sophisticated understanding of different regulatory approaches and their implications. Recommendation is clearly justified. | Presents clear arguments with good support. Shows good understanding of regulatory approaches. Recommendation is justified. | Presents basic arguments, possibly lacking strong support. Shows some understanding of regulation. Recommendation may lack clear justification. | Arguments are weak, unclear, or unsupported. Shows little understanding of regulation. Recommendation is absent or unjustified. |
| Collaboration & Role Fulfillment | Evidence of seamless collaboration. All members contributed significantly and fulfilled roles effectively. Shared workspace/process clearly managed. | Good collaboration evident. Members contributed adequately and roles were generally fulfilled. Some evidence of shared process. | Collaboration was functional but may have been uneven. Roles were partially fulfilled. Process management could be improved. | Little evidence of collaboration. Contributions were minimal or unbalanced. Roles were unclear or unfulfilled. |
| Digital Product Design & Clarity (C1 English) | Digital product is highly engaging, professional, and visually appealing. Information is exceptionally clear and well-organized. English is sophisticated, accurate, and consistently at C1 level. | Digital product is effective, clear, and visually competent. Information is well-organized. English is mostly accurate and appropriate for C1 level, with minor errors. | Digital product is functional but may lack polish or clarity. Organization could be better. English shows some C1 features but may have noticeable errors or inconsistencies. | Digital product is poorly designed, unclear, or difficult to navigate. Information is disorganized. English is significantly flawed or below C1 expectations. |
| APA Citation & Source Use | All sources (including provided and any additional) are accurately cited in APA format throughout the product and in a final reference list. Excellent integration of source material. | Most sources are accurately cited in APA format with minor errors. Good integration of source material. | Some attempt at APA citation, but with significant errors or omissions. Source integration could be improved. | Little to no attempt at citation, or format is incorrect. Poor use or integration of sources. |