Design an aligned assessment task from a learning outcome or competency

Context

A K-12, secondary, or higher education teacher who needs to design a summative assessment task aligned to a specific learning outcome (LO) or competency from their program. Useful for closing a unit in K-12 as well as wrapping up a module or course in university.

Originally written for Chilean classrooms.

Paste first

Before opening the model, have ready:

• The level and type of institution (e.g., "Grade 7, public school" or "Engineering, 3rd year, public university")
• The exact subject or module
• The full text of the learning outcome or competency exactly as it appears in your national curriculum or program document — do not paraphrase it
• The task type you have in mind (written report, oral presentation, project, essay, portfolio)
• The expected length or duration (pages, minutes, weeks)
• Group or context constraints: pair work, no computer during the assessment, students with diverse learning needs, etc.

Privacy rule: Do not share individual student data. If you need to describe the group's characteristics, do so generically ("about a third of the class has an ADHD diagnosis") without names or identifying records.

Act as a learning assessment specialist with experience in both K-12 and higher education, including outcomes-based and competency-based frameworks.

I will give you my course context and I need you to design a complete assessment task, aligned to the learning outcome or competency I will specify.

**Level and type of institution:** {{level_and_type — e.g., "Grade 8, public school" or "Civil Engineering, 3rd year, public university"}}

**Subject or module:** {{subject_or_module}}

**Learning outcome or competency to assess:**
{{paste the full text of the LO or competency exactly as it appears in the official document or program — do not paraphrase it}}

**Task type:** {{task_type — e.g., "individual written report", "group oral presentation", "research project", "essay"}}

**Length or time available:** {{length_or_time — e.g., "maximum 2 handwritten pages", "15-minute presentation per group", "2 weeks of work"}}

**Group conditions or constraints:** {{conditions — e.g., "pair work", "no computer access during the assessment", "several students with a dyslexia diagnosis" — or write "none"}}

With this information, give me the following:

**1. Task description for students**
A clear, complete prompt (150–200 words) explaining what they must do, how, by when, and what will be assessed. Write it directly for students to read, not for the teacher.

**2. Analytic rubric**
Between 3 and 5 criteria derived directly from the LO or competency, with four performance levels per criterion: distinction, proficient, developing, not yet. Each descriptor must describe what the student does or produces — avoid empty adjectives like "excellent" or "poor." Include the suggested weighting of each criterion as a percentage (they must total 100%).

**3. Feedback guide**
Three model questions or phrases the teacher can use when returning the assessed task: one for students who achieved distinction (aimed at deepening), one for students who are developing (aimed at identifying the concrete next step), and one for students who have not yet met the standard (aimed at reframing without discouraging).

Make sure all three products are coherently aligned: the rubric must measure exactly what the task description asks for, and the feedback phrases must refer to rubric criteria, not general impressions.

Expected output

Trimmed example:

1. Task description (Grade 8, Science, Newton's Second Law LO): Write an individual lab report (max. 2 handwritten pages) on the Newton's Second Law experiment. Include a hypothesis with independent and dependent variables, a summarized procedure, a data table with units, a labeled graph, and an analysis linking results to F = m·a.

2. Rubric (excerpt — Graphical representation, 30%): Distinction: graph has a title, both axes labeled with name and unit, uniform scale, correct data points, and a commented trend line. Developing: at least one axis is labeled, but the unit is missing or the scale is irregular.

3. Feedback (for students who are developing): "Your graph has the data points in the right place — that's the hardest part. The next step is to add the unit to each axis and make sure your analysis mentions all three variables: force, mass, and acceleration."

Watch out for

• The rubric may have circular descriptors between adjacent levels ("argues well / argues insufficiently"). If levels are hard to distinguish when grading real work, ask the model to rewrite them as concrete, observable behaviors rather than gradations of the same adjective.
• The model may derive rubric criteria from the entire semester's outcomes instead of the specific LO you pasted. Before using the result, verify that each criterion is directly traceable to the exact text you provided.
• Do not paste previous students' work as a reference for "expected level": it contains identifying data and is not needed to generate a good rubric. If you want to calibrate difficulty, describe the class level in words ("strong algebra background but little experience with formal proof").

Suggested iteration

If the rubric criteria do not fit the task type, ask: "The 'textual coherence' criterion does not apply well to a lab report. Replace it with a data analysis criterion derived directly from the LO." If you need a shorter version for students to use as a self-check before submitting, ask: "Condense the rubric to 3 criteria and rewrite the descriptors in first person ('I included / I did not include') for self-assessment before submission."