This rubric evaluates how effectively students use AI as a writing partner while maintaining authentic voice, creative control, and ethical practices. Assessment focuses on both the final creative work and the process of collaboration with AI tools.
| Criterion | Weight | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Authentic Voice & Originality Student maintains personal voice and demonstrates original thinking |
25% |
Exemplary
Writing exhibits a strong, consistent personal voice throughout. Original ideas and perspectives are clearly evident. AI assistance has been seamlessly integrated without compromising authenticity. Writing includes specific personal insights or experiences that AI could not generate. Reader can clearly sense the student's unique personality and creative vision.
|
Proficient
Writing demonstrates recognizable personal voice most of the time. Original thinking is present, though some sections may feel generic. AI assistance is integrated reasonably well. Most content reflects student's own perspective. Voice occasionally wavers but generally maintains consistency.
|
Developing
Personal voice is inconsistent—some sections sound authentic, others generic. Limited original thinking; relies heavily on common ideas. AI assistance is noticeable and not well integrated. Few specific personal details. Voice shifts noticeably between sections.
|
Beginning
Little to no distinct personal voice. Writing sounds generic throughout. Heavy reliance on AI-generated content with minimal adaptation. No personal insights or original perspectives. Could have been written by anyone—lacks individuality.
|
/25
|
|
Strategic AI Use Student uses AI appropriately for specific challenges |
20% |
Exemplary
AI tools used strategically and purposefully for specific writing challenges (brainstorming, overcoming writer's block, exploring alternatives). Student demonstrates excellent judgment about when to use AI and when to work independently. AI suggestions treated as starting points and significantly adapted. Clear evidence of thoughtful decision-making throughout process.
|
Proficient
AI used appropriately for several writing challenges. Generally good judgment about when to use AI assistance. Most AI suggestions are adapted rather than copied. Some evidence of strategic thinking, though occasionally relies on AI unnecessarily.
|
Developing
AI use is inconsistent—sometimes helpful, sometimes unnecessary. Limited evidence of strategy or planning. Some AI suggestions copied without significant adaptation. Unclear decision-making about when to use AI.
|
Beginning
Over-reliance on AI for tasks student should complete independently. Little evidence of strategic thinking. Most AI content copied directly. AI used as crutch rather than tool.
|
/20
|
|
Critical Evaluation of AI Student thoughtfully evaluates and revises AI suggestions |
20% |
Exemplary
Demonstrates sophisticated critical thinking about AI suggestions. Identifies strengths and weaknesses of AI output. Revises AI content substantially to improve quality and match personal voice. Makes informed decisions about what to use, adapt, or reject. Shows awareness of AI limitations and biases.
|
Proficient
Generally evaluates AI suggestions critically. Revises most AI content before incorporating it. Usually makes good decisions about what to use or reject. Shows some awareness of AI limitations.
|
Developing
Limited critical evaluation of AI output. Some revision of AI content but often superficial. Accepts AI suggestions without deep consideration. Limited awareness of AI limitations.
|
Beginning
Little to no critical evaluation. Accepts AI suggestions uncritically. Minimal or no revision of AI content. No demonstrated awareness of AI limitations or issues.
|
/20
|
|
Process Documentation Student thoroughly documents AI collaboration process |
15% |
Exemplary
Complete, detailed documentation of AI collaboration process. Clear record of prompts used, AI responses received, and how suggestions were adapted. Documentation shows metacognitive awareness of decision-making. Includes reflection on what worked and what didn't. Process log is organized and thorough.
|
Proficient
Good documentation of AI collaboration. Most key interactions recorded. Generally clear about how AI was used and adapted. Some reflection on process. Documentation is mostly complete.
|
Developing
Incomplete documentation. Some key interactions missing. Limited detail about how AI suggestions were used or adapted. Minimal reflection. Documentation feels rushed or superficial.
|
Beginning
Little to no documentation. Unclear how AI was used in the process. Missing critical information. No reflection on process. Documentation inadequate to understand collaboration.
|
/15
|
|
Overall Writing Quality Final product demonstrates strong creative writing |
15% |
Exemplary
Writing is engaging, creative, and well-crafted. Strong organization and structure. Vivid, specific details. Effective use of literary techniques. Few to no errors in grammar/mechanics. Writing shows evidence that AI partnership enhanced rather than replaced student's abilities.
|
Proficient
Writing is clear and generally engaging. Good organization. Adequate detail and description. Some effective use of literary techniques. Minor errors in grammar/mechanics. Writing is competent with some strong moments.
|
Developing
Writing is basic but understandable. Organization needs improvement. Limited detail or description. Few literary techniques used effectively. Several errors in grammar/mechanics. Writing lacks polish.
|
Beginning
Writing is unclear or confusing. Poor organization. Lacks detail. No effective use of literary techniques. Numerous errors interfere with meaning. Writing needs significant improvement.
|
/15
|
|
Ethical AI Use Student demonstrates ethical awareness and transparency |
5% |
Exemplary
Demonstrates exemplary ethical awareness. Completely transparent about AI use. Maintains clear boundaries between AI assistance and own work. Shows sophisticated understanding of academic integrity. Articulates personal guidelines for ethical AI use.
|
Proficient
Demonstrates good ethical awareness. Transparent about AI use. Generally maintains appropriate boundaries. Shows understanding of academic integrity issues. Follows ethical guidelines.
|
Developing
Some ethical awareness but inconsistent application. Not always transparent about AI use. Boundaries sometimes unclear. Limited articulation of ethical considerations.
|
Beginning
Little ethical awareness demonstrated. Lacks transparency about AI use. Unclear or inappropriate boundaries. Minimal understanding of academic integrity issues.
|
/5
|
| A (90-100) | Exemplary: Demonstrates sophisticated AI collaboration with strong authentic voice and ethical awareness |
| B (80-89) | Proficient: Shows effective AI collaboration with generally authentic voice and good ethical practices |
| C (70-79) | Developing: Basic AI collaboration with inconsistent voice; needs improvement in several areas |
| D (60-69) | Beginning: Limited AI collaboration skills; significant improvement needed |
| F (Below 60) | Insufficient: Does not meet minimum standards for AI collaboration or writing quality |
Letter Grade:
Evaluator Signature:
Date: _______________
Student Acknowledgment:
Date: _______________
Strengths (What the student did well)