Rubric Self-Check

Run the Rubric Self-Check MicroSim Fullscreen

About This MicroSim

Chapter 25 grades the capstone portfolio with a 100-point rubric whose weights favor honest analysis over impressive-looking numbers. This self-check turns the rubric into a chart you can use while you work:

Criterion	Points	Full credit means
Portfolio design	15	Objectives with Bloom levels, at least three types, sound type choices
Quality gate	15	Every new MicroSim at 70 or above and width-responsive
Instrumentation	15	Passing checks, one concept per statement, evidence classes justified
Usability test and peer review	15	Findings recorded, fixes made and re-scored
Data policy	10	Minimization and aggregate-only rules stated and enforced in the analysis
Portfolio fidelity report	20	Complete Chapter 19 structure, uncertainty shown, limits sentence first
Defense	10	Answers questions about measured versus designed claims

Each criterion has a self-rating slider from 0 to 100 percent. Its bar shows the points earned at that rating in blue and the points still available in grey, and the total appears above the chart. Hover over a bar to read what full credit means. Suggest next focus highlights, in orange with a thick outline, the criterion with the most points still available.

The suggestion is only a starting point. Points still available are one reason to work on a criterion; another is dependency, since a fidelity report cannot be honest until the instrumentation it rests on passes its checks. That is why the text box asks for your reason.

These ratings are your own self-assessment. They are not a grade, and the total is only as good as your honesty about each "full credit means" statement.

Learning objective: The learner will assess a draft portfolio against the seven rubric criteria and justify which criterion to improve first.

Bloom's taxonomy level: Evaluate (verb: assess)

How to Use

1. Read the "full credit means" text for a criterion (hover over its bar, or use the table above).
2. Move that criterion's slider to the percentage of full credit your draft portfolio earns today. Repeat for all seven.
3. Read the total above the chart.
4. Press Suggest next focus. The criterion with the most points still available is highlighted.
5. In the text box, write why you will improve that criterion first, or why a different one should come first.

Iframe Embed Code

You can add this MicroSim to any web page by adding this to your HTML:

<iframe src="https://dmccreary.github.io/microsims/sims/portfolio-rubric-self-check/main.html"
        height="622px"
        width="100%"
        scrolling="no"></iframe>

Lesson Plan

Audience

Teachers, instructional designers, learning-technology developers and learning-analytics practitioners (college undergraduate and professional development).

Duration

15-20 minutes

Prerequisites

• The capstone brief, milestones and rubric in Chapter 25
• A draft portfolio, or the chapter's worked Ohm's-law portfolio plan as a stand-in

Activities

1. Rate with evidence (7 min): For each criterion, write one piece of evidence from the draft (a validator score, a check-xapi.py report, a usability note) before moving its slider.
2. Focus (3 min): Press Suggest next focus and compare the suggestion with your own instinct.
3. Justify (5 min): In the text box, write a two-sentence reason for your first improvement that uses both points and dependency.
4. Peer check (optional, 5 min): Swap ratings with a partner. Each partner challenges one rating that seems too generous, citing the "full credit means" text.

Assessment

• Every rating is backed by a concrete piece of evidence from the portfolio.
• The learner's reason names the points at stake and at least one dependency or risk.
• The learner can explain why the self-rated total is not a grade.

References

1. Rubric (academic) - Wikipedia. Criteria, levels and descriptors in scoring rubrics.
2. Self-assessment - Wikipedia. Background on learners judging their own work.
3. Bar chart documentation - Chart.js. Horizontal (indexAxis: 'y') and stacked bar charts.