Student Name:
Group:
Date:
Evaluates the comprehensiveness, specificity, balance, and implementability of the group's AI use policy draft
| Criteria | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensiveness Does the policy address all key areas? |
Policy thoroughly addresses all 9 sections of the template including purpose, definitions, acceptable use, prohibited use, citation, privacy, equity, consequences, and review process. Each section contains substantive content. | Policy addresses 7-8 sections with reasonable depth. Most key areas are covered, though one or two sections may be thin. | Policy addresses 5-6 sections. Several important areas are missing or treated only superficially. | Policy addresses 4 or fewer sections. Major areas (privacy, equity, consequences) are absent. |
| Specificity Are provisions clear and actionable? |
Provisions are specific and actionable. A reader could immediately understand what is and isn't allowed. Examples and scenarios are used to illustrate provisions. Policy language avoids vague terms like "appropriate" without defining them. | Most provisions are clear and actionable. Some sections use specific language, though a few provisions rely on vague terms without clarification. | Provisions are frequently vague (e.g., "use AI responsibly" without defining responsible). A reader would have many questions about what is actually permitted. | Policy is entirely vague and general. Provisions are so broad they provide no practical guidance. Reads more like a wish list than a policy. |
| Balance Does the policy balance innovation with integrity? |
Policy thoughtfully balances encouraging productive AI use with protecting academic integrity. Acknowledges AI as both opportunity and risk. Considers multiple stakeholder needs. Avoids being either all-permissive or all-prohibitive. | Policy generally balanced, with reasonable provisions for both use and restriction. May lean slightly toward one extreme but shows awareness of the need for balance. | Policy is noticeably unbalanced - either overly permissive (anything goes) or overly restrictive (everything banned). Shows limited consideration of competing concerns. | Policy takes an extreme position (total ban or total freedom) without acknowledging the complexities or tradeoffs involved. |
| Implementability Could this policy actually be adopted? |
Policy is realistic and could be implemented in an actual school. Considers enforcement mechanisms, resource requirements, and practical constraints. Consequences are graduated and fair. Review process is defined. | Policy is mostly realistic with some provisions that might be difficult to implement. Consequences exist but may not be fully thought through. | Several provisions would be impractical to implement or enforce. Limited consideration of real-world constraints. | Policy is largely aspirational with little attention to how it would actually work in practice. No enforcement mechanism or consequence structure. |
| Use of Research Does the policy draw on real-world examples? |
Policy clearly draws on research of real-world AI policies. References or adapts specific provisions from existing policies. Shows evidence of learning from how other institutions have approached these issues. | Policy shows some influence from the research phase. A few provisions clearly draw on existing policies, though connections could be stronger. | Minimal connection to researched policies. Policy appears to be written mostly from personal opinion without research foundation. | No evidence that the research phase informed the policy draft. Policy does not reference or reflect any existing real-world approaches. |
Evaluates the depth and quality of the individual stakeholder perspective worksheet and contribution to the roundtable discussion
| Criteria | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Role Embodiment Did the student authentically represent their stakeholder? |
Fully embodied the assigned stakeholder role. Articulated concerns, priorities, and reasoning that are realistic and specific to the role. Stayed in character during the roundtable discussion. Identified nuances within the role. | Generally represented the stakeholder well. Most concerns and priorities align with the role. Occasionally broke character or defaulted to personal opinion. | Superficial representation of the stakeholder. Concerns listed were generic or did not clearly reflect the assigned role's perspective. | Did not meaningfully engage with the assigned role. Responses reflect personal opinion rather than the stakeholder's perspective. |
| Depth of Analysis How deeply did the student engage with the concerns? |
Responses show deep thinking about the complexities of each concern. Identifies tensions, tradeoffs, and interconnections between issues. Goes beyond surface-level observations to analyze root causes and implications. | Responses show solid engagement with most concerns. Some analysis goes beyond the surface, though a few responses are more descriptive than analytical. | Responses are mostly surface-level. Concerns are listed but not analyzed. Limited exploration of why these concerns matter or how they connect. | Responses are minimal or off-topic. Little to no analytical thinking demonstrated. |
| Prioritization and Reasoning Are priorities well-reasoned and justified? |
Top 3 priorities are clearly stated and strongly justified. Red line is specific and well-reasoned. Compromise position shows understanding that policy-making requires give-and-take. | Priorities are stated and generally justified. Red line is identified. Compromise position exists but may not be fully developed. | Priorities are listed but not well-justified. Red line is vague. Compromise position is missing or unrealistic. | Priorities are absent or arbitrary. No meaningful red line or compromise identified. |
| Roundtable Contribution Did the student contribute meaningfully to group discussion? |
Actively contributed to the roundtable. Listened to other stakeholders, asked clarifying questions, and helped identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Notes reflect engagement with all perspectives. | Contributed to the roundtable discussion. Listened to others and participated in finding common ground. Roundtable notes are complete. | Limited participation in the roundtable. May have presented own perspective but did not engage meaningfully with others. Notes are incomplete. | Minimal or no participation in the roundtable discussion. Did not engage with other stakeholders' perspectives. |
Evaluates the group's policy presentation including clarity, persuasiveness, evidence use, and responsiveness to questions
| Criteria | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity of Communication Was the presentation clear and well-organized? |
Presentation was exceptionally clear and well-organized. Purpose statement was compelling. Key provisions were presented logically. All group members spoke clearly and confidently. Time was used effectively. | Presentation was clear and mostly well-organized. Key provisions were communicated effectively. Most group members spoke clearly. Generally good use of time. | Presentation was somewhat disorganized or unclear. Some provisions were difficult to understand. Uneven participation among group members. | Presentation was confusing or incoherent. Key provisions were not clearly communicated. Poor use of time. |
| Evidence-Based Reasoning Did the group justify their policy choices? |
Every key provision was justified with reasoning and evidence. Referenced real-world policies, stakeholder concerns, or scenario analysis to support decisions. Explained the "why" behind each provision, not just the "what." | Most provisions were justified with some reasoning or evidence. At least one reference to real-world policies or stakeholder input. Some provisions presented without explanation. | Limited justification for policy choices. Provisions were stated but rarely explained. Few or no references to research or stakeholder input. | No justification provided for policy provisions. Provisions were listed without explanation or reasoning. |
| Persuasiveness Was the policy convincing? |
Presentation made a compelling case for the policy. Anticipated potential objections and addressed them. Made the audience want to adopt the policy. Highlighted innovative or thoughtful provisions. | Presentation was generally persuasive. Some strong arguments were made, though not all objections were anticipated. | Presentation was not particularly persuasive. Arguments were weak or underdeveloped. Policy did not seem well thought-through. | Presentation was unconvincing. No attempt to persuade the audience of the policy's merits. |
| Response to Questions Did the group handle questions effectively? |
Responded thoughtfully and confidently to questions from the audience. Provided substantive answers that demonstrated deep understanding of their policy. Acknowledged valid criticisms and suggested how the policy might be improved. | Responded adequately to questions. Most answers were reasonable, though some lacked depth. | Struggled to respond to questions. Answers were vague or deflected rather than addressed the concern. | Unable to respond meaningfully to questions. Demonstrated limited understanding of their own policy. |
Evaluates individual contribution to group work, including research, drafting, discussion participation, and peer support
| Criteria | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual Contribution Did the student do their fair share? |
Contributed significantly to all phases of the project: research, stakeholder role-play, policy drafting, and presentation. Took initiative and went beyond the minimum expectations. | Contributed meaningfully to most phases. Completed assigned responsibilities reliably. | Contributed to some phases but was passive or uninvolved in others. Required prompting to participate. | Minimal contribution. Relied on group members to do the work. Was frequently off-task or disengaged. |
| Active Listening Did the student listen to and build on others' ideas? |
Consistently listened attentively to group members. Built on others' ideas, asked clarifying questions, and synthesized different viewpoints. Made others feel heard and valued. | Generally listened to group members and incorporated their ideas. Occasionally asked questions or built on others' contributions. | Sometimes listened but frequently talked over others or dismissed their ideas. Limited engagement with perspectives different from their own. | Did not listen to group members. Dominated discussions or was completely disengaged. Did not acknowledge others' ideas. |
| Constructive Dialogue Did the student engage in productive disagreement? |
Expressed disagreement respectfully and constructively. Offered alternative perspectives with supporting reasoning. Helped the group navigate difficult decisions and find compromise. Maintained a productive tone throughout. | Generally expressed views constructively. Could disagree without being dismissive. Participated in group decision-making. | Sometimes expressed disagreement unproductively (shutting down ideas, being dismissive) or avoided expressing any opinion at all. | Was argumentative, dismissive, or completely passive. Did not contribute to constructive group dialogue. |
| Time and Task Management Did the student help the group stay on track? |
Helped the group manage time effectively and stay focused on the task. Took responsibility for ensuring all sections were completed. Adapted when plans needed to change. | Generally helped the group stay on track. Completed work within the allotted time. | Sometimes needed prompting to stay focused. May have caused the group to fall behind on some sections. | Frequently off-task, distracted, or distracting. Did not help the group manage time or complete work. |
| 1. Policy Quality (35%) | / 20 |
| 2. Stakeholder Analysis (20%) | / 16 |
| 3. Presentation & Argumentation (25%) | / 16 |
| 4. Collaboration (20%) | / 16 |
| TOTAL | / 68 |
Overall Comments: