Design prototype · Qualitative / Zero point rubrics

A fourth rubric format, drawn into the existing builder

Two things are removed and nothing is added to the builder: the Weighting % box on each criterion, and the point range inputs on each scale item. Level names and descriptors stay exactly as they are — they're the part that does the work in a qualitative rubric. The score moves to a single input in the marking view.

Prototype built to communicate the change for this case study. Not a screenshot of shipped product.

1 · Rubric builder · Qualitative format selected

History 1001 Cecil Jose's Notebook
⚙  HELP + DOCS
‹

Marking Rubric

✓ RELEASED Last updated on 22/08/2026 at 3:07 PM
▦
▤
⚙ RUBRIC FORMAT
👁 PREVIEW

Calculation

Weighted percentage
Points range
Absolute points
New Qualitative / Zero point

Order of scale items

Ascending from left to right
Descending from left to right
Fail🗑
Pass🗑
Credit🗑
Distinction🗑
High Distinction🗑
▾ Analysis of Individual Role &… ✕
Description
19🗑 Removed
0–17 Removed
Minimal or no reflection on personal role or contribution.
18–33
Mostly descriptive; limited reflection or self-awareness.
34–50
Adequate description of contributions with some reflective insight.
51–67
Clear and thoughtful analysis of personal role and contribution. Shows good self-awareness.
68–100
Deep, honest, and critical analysis of personal performance and contribution.
+
▾ Evaluation of Group Process… ✕
Description
19🗑
0–49
No meaningful evaluation of group process.
50–64
Descriptive or superficial comments on group work.
65–74
Basic evaluation; some general observations but limited depth.
75–84
Clear discussion of group processes with some analytical depth.
85–100
Insightful, balanced evaluation of group dynamics, decision-making, and collaboration.
+
▾ Critical Analysis of Presentat… ✕
Description
19🗑
0–49
No meaningful analysis of the presentation.
50–64
Minimal critique; largely descriptive.
65–74
Reasonable comments on strengths and weaknesses, but limited analysis.
75–84
Solid analysis of presentation quality with good depth and clear reasoning.
85–100
Sophisticated critique of the final presentation's strengths, weaknesses, and reasoning.
+

Removals marked in red for this prototype only — in the shipped format these controls simply wouldn't render, leaving a cleaner criterion card and scale item.

2 · What actually changes, criterion by criterion

Weighted percentage

Existing format
▾ Evaluation of Gr… ✕
Description
19🗑
50–64
Descriptive or superficial comments on group work.
65–74
Basic evaluation; some general observations but limited depth.
Weightings must total 100%. The grade is derived from criterion scores.

Qualitative / Zero point

New format
▾ Evaluation of Gr… ✕
Description
No weighting input
Descriptive or superficial comments on group work.
Basic evaluation; some general observations but limited depth.
Nothing to total. The criteria guide the judgement; the marker enters the grade.

3 · Marking view · where the score now lives

‹

Marking

QUALITATIVE RUBRIC
👁 PREVIEW
Evaluation of Group Process & Collaboration Optional

Pass · Descriptive or superficial comments on group work.

Selecting a level is available for feedback but not required — and contributes nothing to the grade.

Critical Analysis of Presentation Optional

Left unselected — permitted, and the submission can still be graded.

Final score · entered by the marker
72/ 100

A single, deliberate judgement — not calculated from the criteria. This is the value that flows to grade passback and the gradebook.

Where "out of" comes from

  • Classic & exams — total points in assessment settings
  • MFA & vivas — maximum score on the question
  • Groups — derived from section weighting
New or changed
Removed in this format
Optional rather than required