Create a rubric for a history essay in secondary school

Context

A secondary school History or Social Studies teacher who needs an analytic rubric to assess an argumentative essay, with criteria clear enough for students to use for self-assessment before submitting.

Originally written for Chilean classrooms. References to "III° Medio" (grade 11) and the 1.0–7.0 grading scale reflect the Chilean system. Adapt level labels and grading scale to your school's framework.

Paste first

Before opening the model, have ready:

• The exact task description (what students were asked to do)
• The learning objectives or skills you want to assess (ideally 3 to 5)
• The essay length (number of pages or words)
• Whether the rubric is for you only or also for students to receive before submitting
• Your school's grading scale

Act as a History teacher with experience in authentic assessment and constructing analytic rubrics for secondary school.

I need a rubric to assess an argumentative essay by my {{grade level, e.g. "Grade 11"}} students. Here's the context:

**Task:**
{{paste the exact essay task description here}}

**Learning objectives or skills to assess:**
{{list the skills — e.g.: "argumentation with historical evidence, use of sources, textual coherence, position on the topic, bibliography"}}

**Essay length:** {{number}} pages / {{number}} words

**Rubric use:** {{teacher only / students also receive it before submitting}}

**Grading scale:** {{e.g., "A–F" or "0–100 points, passing at 60"}}

**What I need:**
An analytic rubric with:
1. Between 4 and 5 assessment criteria, derived from the skills you gave me
2. Four performance levels per criterion (exemplary, proficient, developing, insufficient), with specific descriptors — not empty adjectives ("excellent", "good")
3. Suggested weighting for each criterion (percentage, totaling 100%)
4. A brief version of each descriptor written so that a secondary school student can understand it without additional explanation

No empty adjectives. Each descriptor must state what the student does or doesn't do — concrete, observable behavior.

Expected output

**Criterion 1: Argumentation with historical evidence (30%)**

| Level | Descriptor |
|---|---|
| Exemplary | Presents at least three arguments, each supported by a specific source cited correctly. Arguments connect to each other and support a clear thesis. |
| Proficient | Presents two or three arguments with evidence, though the connection to the thesis is not always explicit. |
| Developing | Includes historical claims but without source support, or cites sources without connecting them to the argument. |
| Insufficient | Does not present evidence-based arguments. Claims are opinions without historical grounding. |

Watch out for

• Don't share student names or actual student work with the model to build the rubric — it doesn't need them. If you want to calibrate the level of rigor, describe the class's typical performance in general terms, without identifiable data.
• Generic descriptors ("demonstrates understanding") are useless for grading. If the model produces them, ask it to rewrite them as observable behaviors.
• The rubric the model generates is a draft. Before using it, check that the levels are distinguishable in practice with real student work — sometimes the difference between "proficient" and "developing" isn't well calibrated.

Suggested iteration

If descriptors look too similar across levels, ask: "The argumentation criterion has very similar descriptors between 'proficient' and 'developing.' Rewrite them so someone grading can distinguish them quickly, without hesitation." If you want to adapt the rubric for self-assessment, ask: "Rewrite each descriptor in the first person, as if the student were saying 'I did / I didn't do this.'"