Use these rubrics to evaluate student work on the three main summative assessments for Lesson 8.
Total Points: 50 | Weight: 40% of lesson grade
| Criteria | Excellent (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Needs Improvement (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research Depth & Accuracy (12 points) |
All research components thoroughly completed with accurate, current information. Uses 4+ credible sources. Information is specific with concrete examples (salary ranges, education requirements, etc.). | Most research components completed with generally accurate information. Uses 3 credible sources. Some specific details provided but may lack depth in 1-2 areas. | Research components partially completed. Uses 1-2 sources. Information is vague or outdated. Missing significant details about career pathway. | Research incomplete or inaccurate. Minimal information provided. Sources not credible or not cited. Major gaps in understanding of career. |
| AI Integration Analysis (12 points) |
Insightful analysis of how AI transforms the career field. Distinguishes clearly between automation and augmentation. Provides specific AI tools/systems used. Discusses both current state and future predictions with evidence. | Clear explanation of AI's role in the field. Mentions specific tools or applications. Addresses current use and some future implications. Minor gaps in distinguishing automation vs. augmentation. | Basic mention of AI in the field but lacks specificity. Does not clearly distinguish between different types of AI integration. Limited discussion of how AI changes the work. | Little to no discussion of AI's role in the career. Information is generic or inaccurate about AI integration. Does not address how AI transforms the work. |
| Source Quality & Citation (8 points) |
Uses reputable sources (Bureau of Labor Statistics, professional associations, academic research, credible industry publications). All sources properly cited with URLs or publication information. Information cross-checked across multiple sources. | Uses mostly credible sources with appropriate citations. Minor citation errors or 1 questionable source. Adequate verification of information. | Some sources lack credibility (blogs, opinion sites). Incomplete or inconsistent citations. Limited verification of facts. | Uses unreliable sources or no sources cited. Information cannot be verified. Plagiarism or uncited copying of text. |
| Career Pathway Understanding (10 points) |
Clearly articulates education requirements, alternative pathways, entry-level positions, and career progression. Identifies specific skills needed and how to acquire them. Realistic timeline and steps to enter field. | Describes education requirements and general pathway into field. Mentions some skills needed. Timeline is mostly realistic with minor gaps in understanding entry process. | Vague description of how to enter field. Education requirements mentioned but lacking detail. Unclear about necessary skills or realistic timeline. | Does not explain how to enter career or requirements are inaccurate. No clear understanding of pathway or preparation needed. |
| Professional Presentation (8 points) |
Template completed neatly and thoroughly. Information organized logically. No spelling or grammar errors. Easy to read and understand. Demonstrates pride in work. | Template mostly complete and organized. Few spelling/grammar errors. Generally neat and readable. Minor organizational issues. | Template partially completed. Multiple spelling/grammar errors. Difficult to follow. Appears rushed or careless. | Template barely completed. Numerous errors. Disorganized or illegible. Does not meet basic presentation standards. |
Total Points: 40 | Weight: 30% of lesson grade
| Criteria | Excellent (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Needs Improvement (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-Term Actions Specificity (10 points) |
Lists 2-3 specific, actionable steps for this school year. Each action includes what, when, and how. Actions are realistic and directly related to career interests. Shows initiative and planning. | Lists 2-3 actions with some specificity. Most actions are realistic and connected to goals. Minor gaps in timeline or implementation details. | Lists 1-2 actions but they are vague (e.g., "learn coding" without specifics). Limited connection to career goals or unclear timeline. | Actions are missing, too vague to implement, or unrealistic. No clear plan for next steps. Does not demonstrate forward thinking. |
| Medium-Term Goals Development (8 points) |
Identifies 3-5 meaningful goals for high school years. Goals show progression and build toward long-term pathway. Balance of skill-building and exploration. Specific courses, activities, or experiences named. | Identifies 3-4 goals that are generally appropriate. Some progression evident. Mix of specific and general goals. Connection to pathway mostly clear. | Lists 1-2 goals that are too vague or generic. Limited progression or connection to career interest. Lacks specificity about what student will actually do. | Goals missing or not appropriate for timeframe. No connection to career pathway. Does not show understanding of high school opportunities. |
| Long-Term Pathway Vision (8 points) |
Articulates clear post-secondary direction (college, bootcamp, apprenticeship, etc.). Researched specific programs or options with details. Acknowledges flexibility while showing direction. Realistic about requirements and timeline. | Describes general post-secondary plan. Some research evident. Mostly realistic understanding. May lack specific program details but shows awareness of options. | Vague post-secondary plan. Limited research or understanding of requirements. Unrealistic expectations or no acknowledgment of preparation needed. | No clear long-term direction or plan is completely unrealistic. Does not demonstrate understanding of post-secondary options or requirements. |
| AI Literacy Plan (6 points) |
Specific plan for building AI understanding regardless of career field. Identifies concrete resources (courses, books, experiences). Shows commitment to informed citizenship. Balances technical learning and ethical awareness. | General plan for AI learning. Some specific resources mentioned. Shows awareness that AI literacy matters across careers. Minor gaps in how to build knowledge. | Vague plan for AI learning. Few specific resources. Limited understanding of why AI literacy matters for their chosen field. | No AI literacy plan or shows misunderstanding of what AI literacy means. Does not connect AI learning to career success. |
| SMART 30-Day Goal (8 points) |
Goal is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Clear action with deadline. Directly supports larger career plans. Demonstrates ability to break big goals into manageable steps. | Goal meets most SMART criteria. Generally achievable and relevant. Minor issues with specificity or measurement. Timeline is reasonable. | Goal is somewhat vague or missing key SMART elements. Timeline unclear or unrealistic. Weak connection to broader goals. | Goal does not meet SMART criteria. Too vague to assess completion. No timeline or unrealistic. Does not connect to career preparation. |
Total Points: 30 | Weight: 30% of lesson grade
| Criteria | Excellent (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Needs Improvement (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Changed Thinking (8 points) |
Thoughtfully explains how lesson changed their understanding of AI and careers. Identifies specific insights or "aha moments." Shows genuine intellectual growth. Compares thinking before and after lesson with nuance. | Describes changes in thinking with some specificity. Mentions key learnings from lesson. Shows reflection but may lack depth in explaining transformation. | Briefly mentions changed thinking but remains superficial. Limited connection to specific lesson content. Vague about what specifically changed. | Claims no change in thinking or explanation is unclear. Does not demonstrate engagement with lesson concepts. Generic statements without evidence of learning. |
| Concerns About AI (8 points) |
Articulates substantive concern about AI's workplace impact. Demonstrates understanding of complex issues (displacement, ethics, equity, bias, etc.). Concern is specific and shows critical thinking, not just fear. | Expresses reasonable concern with some specificity. Shows awareness of AI challenges. May lack depth in exploring implications but concern is valid. | States concern but remains vague or generic. Limited understanding of why concern matters. May be purely emotional without analytical component. | No concern expressed or concern shows misunderstanding of AI. Dismissive of legitimate challenges or catastrophizing without nuance. |
| Excitement About Opportunities (8 points) |
Expresses genuine excitement about specific AI-related opportunities. Connects opportunities to personal interests or values. Shows optimistic but realistic view of AI's potential. Balances enthusiasm with thoughtfulness. | Shares excitement with some specificity. Makes personal connections to opportunities. Generally positive view with minor gaps in explaining why opportunities matter. | Mentions opportunities but lacks enthusiasm or specificity. Generic statements about AI being "cool" or "interesting" without depth. | No excitement expressed or statements are insincere. Does not connect opportunities to personal future. Purely negative view or unrealistic hype. |
| Writing Quality (6 points) |
Well-organized with clear introduction, body, and conclusion. No significant grammar or spelling errors. Flows logically between ideas. Professional tone. Meets length requirement (2-3 paragraphs). | Generally well-organized. Few grammar/spelling errors. Ideas connect reasonably well. Appropriate tone. Meets length requirement. | Organization is weak. Multiple grammar/spelling errors. Ideas jump around or don't connect. May be too short or rambling. Informal tone. | Poorly organized or too brief. Numerous errors that impede comprehension. Does not meet length requirement. Inappropriate tone or careless effort. |
Total Points: 30 | Can replace Written Reflection at teacher's discretion
| Criteria | Excellent (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Needs Improvement (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content Accuracy (8 points) |
Career information is accurate and comprehensive. AI integration is explained with specific examples. All facts are verifiable and current. Shows deep understanding of the field. | Career information is mostly accurate. AI role is explained with some specificity. Minor factual gaps but core information is sound. | Some inaccurate information. Vague explanation of AI's role. Limited understanding evident despite correct surface details. | Significant inaccuracies. Misunderstands AI's role in field. Information is outdated or wrong. |
| Personal Preparation Plan (8 points) |
Articulates clear, specific plan for preparing for this career. Connects personal skills/interests to career requirements. Realistic timeline and actionable steps. Shows strategic thinking. | Describes preparation plan with some specificity. Makes personal connections. Generally realistic. Minor gaps in strategic planning. | Vague preparation plan. Weak connection between personal qualities and career needs. Limited strategic thinking evident. | No clear preparation plan or plan is unrealistic. Does not connect personal situation to career requirements. |
| Communication Clarity (8 points) |
Speaks clearly and confidently. Well-organized presentation with logical flow. Easy to follow and understand. Engaging delivery maintains viewer interest. Stays within time limit (2-3 minutes). | Speaks clearly most of the time. Generally organized. Understandable with minor issues. Meets time requirement. | Unclear speech or poor organization. Difficult to follow. Monotone or disengaged delivery. Significantly over or under time. | Hard to understand. Disorganized. Does not communicate ideas effectively. Way off on time requirement. |
| Creativity & Effort (6 points) |
Creative presentation approach (visual aids, demonstrations, storytelling, etc.). Shows significant effort and polish. Professional quality. Demonstrates pride in work. | Some creative elements. Good effort evident. Generally professional. Shows care in production. | Minimal creativity. Basic effort. Appears somewhat rushed. Few production values. | No creativity or effort. Appears careless or last-minute. Poor quality that impedes message. |
Share Rubrics in Advance: Provide students with rubrics before they begin work so they understand expectations. Consider reviewing rubrics together as a class and answering questions about criteria.
Student Self-Assessment: Have students evaluate their own work using the rubric before submission. This builds metacognitive skills and often results in higher quality final products as students identify areas to strengthen.
Peer Feedback: Use rubrics to guide constructive peer review. Students exchange drafts and provide feedback using specific rubric criteria, which helps both the reviewer and reviewed improve.
Formative Use: Don't just use rubrics for final grading. During work time, reference specific rubric criteria when providing feedback: "I can see you've met the 'proficient' level on research depth. To reach 'excellent,' try adding one more specific example of how this career uses AI."
Differentiate When Needed: For students with IEPs or 504 plans, you may need to adjust criteria or weight components differently while maintaining rigor. For example, prioritizing content understanding over writing mechanics, or allowing alternative formats.
Look for Growth: Consider comparing student work on this lesson to earlier assignments. Are students showing improved research skills? Better critical thinking about technology? Recognition of growth is motivating even when final products have room for improvement.
Provide Specific Feedback: Don't just circle a score level. Add brief comments explaining why work falls into a particular category and what concrete steps would move it to the next level. Feedback is most useful when it's actionable.
Conference When Possible: For struggling students or exceptional work, brief one-on-one conversations using the rubric as a guide can be more valuable than written comments alone. Ask students to explain their thinking and guide them toward insights.
If your school uses standards-based grading rather than points/percentages, these rubrics can be adapted:
Focus on mastery of learning objectives rather than point accumulation, and allow revision opportunities for students to demonstrate growth.