Editable post-lesson rubrics, grounded in research
A custom rubric, built for the specific mission your students just completed. Dimensions are calibrated to the methodology, descriptors name the actual evidence in your handouts, and it is appropriate for the grade level. Ready in seconds, not the hours an instructional designer would take.
Browse sample rubrics
Six real rubrics drawn from live missions. Hover to lift, click to generate a lesson with the same methodology.
Case Study Deliberation Rubric
| Dimensions | Developing | Proficient | Exemplary | What did you see? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Evidence citation quality Evidence Synthesise five evidence packets into a written verdict. | Students reference materials by name but do not specify which document or claim supports their conclusion. | Students cite the specific document and quote the claim that anchored their reasoning. | Students cite multiple documents, weigh contradictions, and label which claim each piece of evidence supports. | |
Group deliberation rigor Evidence Ridolfi reports + Throckmorton confession + Babington Letter. | One or two voices dominate; quieter students did not contribute a substantive claim. | Every group member contributed at least one claim or counter-claim. | Group explicitly reconciled a disagreement before arriving at a verdict. |
Mary Queen of Scots: traitor or pawn?
Mock Trial Verdict Rubric
| Dimensions | Developing | Proficient | Exemplary | What did you see? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Argument construction Evidence opening statement + cross-examination response. | Students assert claims without citing the legal code. | Students cite specific laws from the dossier when making claims. | Students cite laws and anticipate the opposing side's rebuttal. | |
Evidence handling Evidence witness statements + cross-examination. | Evidence is mentioned but not connected to the verdict ask. | Evidence is named and tied to one element of the verdict. | Evidence is weighted; weak evidence is acknowledged on the record. |
Hammurabi on Trial
Jigsaw Expertise Transfer Rubric
| Dimensions | Developing | Proficient | Exemplary | What did you see? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
I taught my piece clearly Evidence expert-group teach-back during the cross-group share. | I read my notes out loud; my group had follow-up questions I could not answer. | I explained my piece in my own words and could answer at least one follow-up. | I checked my group understood by asking them to summarise it back to me. | |
I learned from my teammates Evidence final synthesis paragraph each student writes alone. | I can name what my teammates taught but cannot link it to my own piece. | I named two pieces of evidence from my teammates that I did not have before. | I connected my piece to a teammate's piece and showed how the two together change the conclusion. |
Climate Zones Jigsaw
Fishbowl Discussion Rubric
| Dimensions | Developing | Proficient | Exemplary | What did you see? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Listening before responding Evidence inner-circle turns observed during the seminar. | Student responds to the topic, not to what the previous speaker said. | Student references the previous speaker before adding their claim. | Student names what they heard, then either builds on it or politely diverges. | |
Claim quality Evidence recorded contributions from each fishbowl rotation. | Claim restates a position from the reading without elaboration. | Claim names a position and one piece of supporting evidence. | Claim names a position, evidence, and one caveat or counter-argument. |
Should Schools Ban Phones?
Gallery Walk Observer Rubric
| Dimensions | Developing | Proficient | Exemplary | What did you see? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Engagement with peer work Evidence sticky notes left at each station during the walk. | Student walks past most stations without reading or commenting. | Student leaves a written comment or question at three or more stations. | Student's comments reference specific content on the panel, not just praise. | |
Reflection quality Evidence closing reflection card. | Reflection names what they saw without comparing to their own work. | Reflection identifies one thing they would change about their own panel. | Reflection identifies a strength they could borrow AND one thing to change. |
From Seed to Plate
Socratic Seminar Student Rubric
| Dimensions | Developing | Proficient | Exemplary | What did you see? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
You ground your claims in the text Evidence reference column on the prep handout. | You give an opinion without naming the source. | You name the document and the line that supports your claim. | You compare two documents and explain why one is more persuasive. | |
You build on others Evidence inner-circle observation by a peer. | You take a turn without referencing what was just said. | You name the previous speaker and either extend or challenge their point. | You synthesise two prior turns before adding your own claim. |
The French Revolution
A unique rubric format for each pedagogical moment
A case study and a peer self-assessment do not need the same kind of rubric. Each methodology gets a format, voice, and audience marker suited to the specific teaching moment.
Teacher reflection
A fillable 5-column table you score after the lesson, using student work as evidence.
Case study, Mock trial, Fishbowl, RAFT
Live observer
Same format, third-person voice, ticked as you walk around the room.
Gallery walk, Stations, Mock trial
Peer or self
First-person voice ('I named two pieces of evidence'), filled in by students about themselves or a peer.
Jigsaw, Reciprocal teaching, Snowball
Student reference
A 4-column reference card for students to read before they begin, so they know what good work looks like.
Maker, Project-based learning
Rubrics work when they show students what good work looks like, not when they hand out grades.
- Andrade, H. L. & Du, Y. (2005). Student Perspectives on Rubric-Referenced Assessment. PARE.
- PBLWorks (Buck Institute) (2024). Project Based Learning Rubrics Library. PBLWorks.
- Cornell CTI (2023). Group Work and Collaborative Learning Rubrics. Cornell University.
Designed for the actual workflows of teachers
Built from your mission content
The descriptors mention the actual evidence packets, role cards, and student tasks from your lesson. It is not a generic template that could fit any class.
Dimensions for each methodology
A Case study scores the depth of deliberation and justification for a decision. A Mock trial scores citation of evidence and cross-examination. Each rubric is built for what the methodology actually achieves.
Appropriate for the grade level
Calibrated to the age group you teach. The analytic 5-column format applies from Standard 4 upwards; an icon-scale variant for the youngest students is on its way.
The voice matches the audience
Teacher rubrics are written about students. Self-assessment rubrics are written from the student's perspective. Pedagogy is integrated into the descriptors.
Presented in the lesson's language
Column headers, evidence labels, and the audience marker are all in the same language as the lesson. There is no linguistic disconnect between the activity and the rubric.
Fully editable in Acrobat or Chrome
Native PDF AcroForm fields. Teachers can fill in evidence on screen, save it, and share it. No printer is required.
Students get rubrics too
When the methodology calls for peer or self-assessment, the same system flips voice and audience: the rubric goes to students, written in first person.
Jigsaw Expertise Transfer Rubric
Students assess their own (or a peer's) contribution.
Mark the level for each dimension and note an example from the lesson.
| Dimensions | Developing | Proficient | Exemplary | What did you see? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
I taught my piece clearly Evidence expert-group teach-back during the cross-group share. | I read my notes out loud but my group still had follow-up questions I could not answer. | I explained my piece in my own words and could answer at least one follow-up question. | I checked my group understood by asking them to summarise it back to me before we moved on. | |
I learned from my teammates Evidence final synthesis paragraph each student writes alone. | I can name what my teammates taught but cannot link it to my own piece. | I named two pieces of evidence from my teammates that I did not have before. | I connected my piece to a teammate’s piece and showed how the two together change the conclusion. |
Jigsaw methodology, grade 7 · students score themselves after the cross-group share
READY WHEN YOU ARE
Generate a lesson, receive a rubric
Each mission you generate includes a bespoke rubric, calibrated to the methodology you chose and the grade level you teach. No extra clicks are needed.