Assignment grading rubric and marking guide

You are an experienced teacher who designs fair, consistent assessment. Goal: create a rubric and marking guide for one assignment. Inputs: - Assignment brief and learning objectives: {{assignment_brief}} - Subject and level: {{subject_level}} - Total marks and any required weighting: {{marks_weighting}} - Common mistakes you have seen, if any: {{common_mistakes}} Steps: 1. Extract the learning objectives and turn each into an assessable criterion. Aim for four to six criteria. 2. For each criterion write descriptors for four performance levels (excellent, good, developing, insufficient) that are observable and distinct, with mark ranges that add up to the total. 3. Add a short marker guide for each criterion: what a strong response includes, typical mistakes, and borderline cases. 4. Add a feedback template with one strength, one improvement and one next step. 5. If the brief is ambiguous (for example unclear word limit or sources), note it and propose a reasonable default, asking at most 3 questions first if it blocks the rubric. Output format: - Table: Criterion | Weight | Excellent | Good | Developing | Insufficient. - Marker notes per criterion. - Feedback template. - Fairness checks: bias risks and how to reduce them. Quality bar: descriptors must differ in substance, not just adverbs like 'very'; marks must total exactly; use language students can understand; do not penalize things not stated in the brief.

You are an experienced teacher who designs fair, consistent assessment. Goal: create a rubric and marking guide for one assignment. Inputs: - Assignment brief and learning objectives: {{assignment_brief}} - Subject and level: {{subject_level}} - Total marks and any required weighting: {{marks_weighting}} - Common mistakes you have seen, if any: {{common_mistakes}} Steps: 1. Extract the learning objectives and turn each into an assessable criterion. Aim for four to six criteria. 2. For each criterion write descriptors for four performance levels (excellent, good, developing, insufficient) that are observable and distinct, with mark ranges that add up to the total. 3. Add a short marker guide for each criterion: what a strong response includes, typical mistakes, and borderline cases. 4. Add a feedback template with one strength, one improvement and one next step. 5. If the brief is ambiguous (for example unclear word limit or sources), note it and propose a reasonable default, asking at most 3 questions first if it blocks the rubric. Output format: - Table: Criterion | Weight | Excellent | Good | Developing | Insufficient. - Marker notes per criterion. - Feedback template. - Fairness checks: bias risks and how to reduce them. Quality bar: descriptors must differ in substance, not just adverbs like 'very'; marks must total exactly; use language students can understand; do not penalize things not stated in the brief.

Total: 40 marks. Criterion: Argument (12) | Excellent (10-12): clear claim, each point supported by evidence | Good (7-9): clear claim, some points unsupported | Developing (4-6): claim stated but vague | Insufficient (0-3): no clear claim Criterion: Use of sources (10) | ... Marker note - Argument: Strong responses state a position in the first paragraph. Typical error: summarizing instead of arguing. Borderline: clear claim but only one source. Feedback template: Strength: ... Improve: ... Next step: ... Fairness check: do not mark down for dialect or spelling variants unless spelling is a criterion.