This group project rubric separates three assessment tracks: the shared product, the collaboration process, and individual understanding. Match each criterion with something that can actually reveal it. A missing process record should remain a question rather than becoming a confident judgment about teamwork.
The original fictional example uses a class visitor-orientation guide. Its criteria and records are teaching examples, not official grades or evidence from real students.
Choose what the project should demonstrate
For this exercise, the teacher wants the class to produce a usable orientation guide, consider competing route proposals, and explain a design choice individually. The rubric therefore asks three different questions:
| Track | Criterion | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Shared product | The assigned route is complete and opening instructions match the supplied source | Guide and its source reference |
| Group process | The team records its consideration of conflicting route proposals and the reason for its choice | Decision record showing both proposals and the response |
| Individual understanding | A learner explains one route choice using relevant information | That learner's explanation |
Carnegie Mellon's group-assessment guidance distinguishes product and process, notes that the final artifact may not reveal contributions, and recommends obtaining evidence of individual learning. It also relates assessment emphasis to the learning objectives. The rubric here applies those principles with original criteria. Read the group-work assessment guidance.
Use descriptors that name the difference
The exercise uses three descriptive levels and a separate evidence status:
| Criterion | Demonstrated | Partly demonstrated | Needs further development |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product | All assigned stops are included in order; opening instructions agree with the supplied notice | Route or instruction has an identifiable omission or mismatch | Guide does not yet give enough route/instruction information to follow the assigned task |
| Process | Record identifies both conflicting proposals, considers their implications, and explains the choice | Record mentions alternatives but leaves their comparison or choice rationale unclear | Available record states a choice without addressing the competing proposal |
| Individual | Learner explains a route choice and connects it to relevant information | Learner names a choice but the supporting connection needs clarification | Available explanation does not yet connect a choice with relevant information |
Not observed sits outside those levels. It means the needed evidence is not available for this review. It does not mean the student performed badly or did not do the work.
Decide how these tracks affect an actual course assessment before assigning the project, using the course's objectives and rules. This example does not invent weights or convert the three judgments into one numerical grade.
Review the supplied project packet
The fictional assignment requires a route from the welcome desk to the map display and then the activity table. Supplied notice N1 says: “Begin at the welcome desk. A facilitator will explain the route before visitors continue.”
Guide G1 contains all three stops in that order and repeats the opening instruction accurately. Under the exercise's product criterion, that supplied evidence demonstrates the requirement.
The team was also asked to compare a map-first route with a welcome-desk-first route. No meeting decision record is supplied. The process judgment is therefore Not observed. A teacher can request the missing record or discuss how the decision was reached; G1 alone does not answer that question.
The individual prompt is: “Explain why the guide begins at the welcome desk, using N1.” Learner L1's explanation is pending. Individual understanding remains Not observed, even though G1 includes the right instruction.
The review now has a useful shape: product evidence present, process evidence missing, individual explanation pending. It avoids assigning the same apparent success to every track just because the shared document looks finished.
Use the evidence-separated view
Switch between Product, Process, and Individual to inspect the criterion, descriptors, and supplied record. Compare the product-only view with the separated review. Ask which evidence supports each conclusion and what you would need next.
The blank scaffold lets you enter learning goals, track-specific criteria, descriptors, evidence requests, and review notes. Keep notes while switching tracks, and confirm before resetting them. Any completeness check concerns the working fields; it does not grade a learner or infer an unseen contribution.
Copy this prompt to design your rubric
Create a complete self-contained HTML group-project rubric worksheet.
My learning goals: [product/process/individual goals]. Assignment:
[task]. Evidence available and missing: [records]. Track-specific
criteria/descriptors: [details]. Do not infer individual learning or
group process from a shared product alone.
Include a separate original fictional visitor-orientation-guide case.
Assigned route: welcome desk→map display→activity table. N1: “Begin
at the welcome desk. A facilitator will explain the route before visitors
continue.” G1 includes allthree stops in order and that opening accurately.
Product criterion checks completeness and source-supported instructions:
Demonstrated on supplied G1/N1. Process criterion checks documented
consideration of map-first vs welcome-desk-first proposals and rationale;
decision record missing, Notobserved. Individual prompt asks L1 why the
route begins at welcome desk using N1; explanation pending, Notobserved.
Show three descriptive levels for each criterion: Demonstrated,
Partlydemonstrated, Needsfurtherdevelopment. Name observable differences:
product complete/omitted/insufficient route+instruction; process both
proposals compared/partial reasoning/choice without comparison;
individual choice+relevant connection/connection unclear/no connection.
Keep Notobserved outside levels, not zero or proof of nonperformance.
No weights, automatic equal grades, invented contributions or outcomes.
Provide Product/Process/Individual views, criterion/record inspection,
product-only vs separated review, blank goals/criteria/descriptors/
evidence/notes fields, named missing-criterion feedback, retained typing
across views/validation, confirmed reset. No official grading or records
integration. Use labeled keyboard-accessible controls, visible focus,
system fonts at least16px, readable360px layout without horizontal
scrolling, inline CSS/JavaScript, no dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Share the evidence requests before the work begins
Share the prepared rubric in NOS while students are planning the project. Ask them to identify what they will keep for the process review and what each person will explain afterward. They can then see why the decision record matters before it becomes a missing attachment at the end.