Which AI is best for generating a rubric? In the ever-evolving landscape of online education and digital content, the role of rubrics cannot be overstated. For educators, they are indispensable tools that ensure fair and consistent assessment of student work.
However, what if we could harness the power of AI to assist in creating these critical instructional assets? In this intriguing exploration, we dive into AI-generated rubrics to determine which tool reigns supreme in crafting learning objectives for an online course dedicated to on-page SEO.
Learn more about Exploring the Future: Instructional Design and AI.
In this AI experiment – Rubric Edition, we have three contenders in the ring: ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing, all operating in their free versions. Our goal? To determine which AI shines the brightest when rubrics for an online course about on-page SEO.
To achieve this, we employ a carefully crafted rubric evaluation matrix, our trusty guide throughout this journey. With this matrix, we aim to dissect and assess the outputs of each AI, leaving no stone unturned and providing valuable insights for educators and instructional designers.
In this post
- Introduction
- The Significance of Rubrics in Online Education
- Exploring AI-Powered Rubric Generation
- AI Contenders
- Meet the Competitors: ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing
- The Quest for the Ideal AI in On-Page SEO Courses
- Rubric Evaluation Matrix
- Understanding the Key Criteria
- Clarity, Alignment, Specificity, and Development
- Detailed Rubric Assessment
- Evaluating AI-Generated Rubrics
- Bard’s Weighted Rubric Approach
- ChatGPT and Bing’s Scoring Systems
- AI Approaches and Similarities
- Commonalities in AI Approach
- The Shared Goal of Effective Rubric Creation
- Differences in Presentation
- Bard’s Weighted Criteria
- ChatGPT and Bing’s Simpler Scales
- Additional Evaluation Factors
- Possible AI Approach
- Analyzing the AI’s Decision-Making Process
- Understanding Criteria Generation
- Conclusion
- No One-Size-Fits-All Solution
- Leveraging AI Diversity for Enhanced Rubrics
- Final Thoughts on the AI Experiment
TL;DR best AI for Generating a Rubric
This article seeks the best AI tool for creating rubrics tailored to online courses in on-page SEO. We put three AI contenders—ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing—to the test. Our evaluation relies on a rubric evaluation matrix, our trusty guide. This matrix assesses clarity, alignment, specificity, and development, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation. The results highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each AI tool, offering valuable insights for educators and instructional designers seeking to enhance the assessment process in online education. Ultimately, this exploration underscores the importance of leveraging AI to streamline educational content creation.
Summary best AI for Generating a Rubric
In this comprehensive exploration, we delve into the world of AI-powered rubric generation for online courses, specifically focusing on the domain of on-page SEO. We aim to identify the most proficient AI tool among three contenders: ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing (all evaluated in their free versions).
We employ a meticulous rubric evaluation matrix as our guiding compass to carry out this evaluation. This matrix encompasses four critical criteria:
- Clarity: We assess how well each AI tool’s rubric conveys its intended message, examining language clarity, structural coherence, and overall comprehensibility.
- Alignment: The alignment criterion scrutinizes the extent to which the rubrics generated by these AI tools correspond with the learning objectives, assessment tasks, and the broader course content.
- Specificity: Here, we evaluate the level of detail and precision in the rubrics. The AI-generated rubrics should provide granular and descriptive feedback on various performance aspects of the assessment task.
- Development: This criterion gauges whether the rubrics created by the AI tools are suitable for the target audience in terms of age, knowledge level, and experience.
As we meticulously assess the outputs of ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing, it becomes evident that each AI tool has its unique approach and strengths. Bard employs a weighted rubric system, offering a nuanced evaluation, while ChatGPT and Bing utilize a simpler 1-4 grading scale.
All three AI tools receive the highest ” Excellent ” rating across all four criteria, providing clear, aligned, specific, and well-developed rubrics.
Ultimately, this exploration sheds light on the capabilities of these AI tools in enhancing the rubric creation process for educators and instructional designers in the realm of online education. By leveraging AI-driven solutions, educators can streamline and optimize their assessment methodologies, benefiting instructors and learners.
The AI experiment – Rubric Edition
In this experiment, to determine the best AI for generating a rubric, we compare the capabilities of three AI tools, ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing, for generating learning objectives. (all AI are used in their free version)
We use the following prompt to create a rubric for an assessment in an online course about on-page SEO. Then, we evaluate the outputs using a matrix including relevant criteria.
Don’t miss out on Which AI is Best for Generating Learning Objectives?
Rubric evaluation matrix
The evaluation matrix I’ve carefully crafted for this post is our trusty guide to dissecting and assessing with precision. This matrix ensures that we leave no stone unturned. It’s our tool for systematically breaking down the nuances of each output, allowing valuable insights and an informed perspective.
You can also use an automatic tool like the AI Grading Rubric Generator | Taskade.
Here is a possible matrix with criteria to evaluate rubrics in instructional design.
A more in-depth article is Crafting Rubrics and Resources with Generative A.I. | Center for Transformative Teaching (unl.edu).
Grading Matrix: best AI for Generating a Rubric
I have created a rating matrix to evaluate a rubric created by an AI for an online course assessment. The matrix has four criteria, each with a description and a four-point scale. The criteria are:
- Clarity: The degree to which the rubric is clear, concise, and consistent in its language, structure, and format.
- Alignment: The degree to which the rubric aligns with the learning outcomes, the assessment task, and the course content.
- Specificity: The degree to which the rubric provides specific and descriptive feedback on the performance levels and components of the assessment task.
- Development: The rubric is appropriate for the age, level of knowledge, and experience of the learners.
| Criteria | Description | Assessment Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity | The rubric is clear and easy to understand. | The rubric should assess the learning objectives covered in the course and be used to grade the types of assessments given in the course. |
| Alignment | The rubric is aligned with the course objectives and assessment activities. | The rubric should assess the learning objectives that are covered in the course and should be used to grade the types of assessments that are given in the course. |
| Specificity | The degree to which the rubric provides specific and descriptive feedback on the performance levels and components of the assessment task. | The rubric should provide specific and descriptive feedback on the performance levels and components of the assessment task. |
| Development | The rubric is appropriate for the learners. | The rubric should be appropriate for the age, level of knowledge, and experience of the learners. |
Rubric for assessing the AI output
I will use a simple and generic 1-4 grading rubric to avoid overcomplicating things.
- Very poor
- Poor
- Good
- Excellent
After all this prep, let’s start with the Learning Objectives! I will stick to the same on-page SEO course we used in the other AI challenges!
Which AI is Best for Generating Course Outlines?
Output per AI – Learning Objectives
I did not modify the output of the AI tools. Find the three answers from Bard, ChatGPT and Bing below. And as you will see, there are not only three answers!
Here is the prompt I used for all queries to generate the rubric. Stay tuned because we will work with more elaborate prompts in the future!
We need more information than a simple prompt for this specific AI challenge. We need to use learning objectives and the assignment details to make this work.
To make it challenging, we use the following simple prompt.
🤖 Prompt
Create a detailed grading rubric for an online course about on-page SEO for this assessment.
Learning Objective: Optimize your website's content for search engines.
Assessment: Students will write a blog post optimized for search engines using various on-page SEO techniques.Bard
Here is a detailed grading rubric for an online course about on-page SEO for the assessment in which students will write a blog post optimized for search engines using various on-page SEO techniques:
| Criteria | Description | Weight | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content | The blog post is well-written and informative. It covers the topic in a comprehensive and engaging way. The blog post is also relevant to the target audience. | 40% | |
| Keyword research | The blog post is optimized for the target keyword. The keyword is used throughout the blog post in a natural and effective way. The blog post also includes related keywords and phrases. | 20% | |
| Title tag optimization | The title tag is clear, concise, and informative. It includes the target keyword and is likely to attract clicks from search engine users. | 10% | |
| Header tag optimization | The header tags are used correctly and effectively to structure the content of the blog post. The header tags also include the target keyword in a natural and effective way. | 10% | |
| Image optimization | The images in the blog post are optimized for search engines. The images have descriptive file names and alt text. | 5% | |
| Internal linking | The blog post includes internal links to other relevant blog posts on the website. The internal links are used to improve the navigation of the website and to help search engines understand the structure of the website. | 5% | |
| Grammar and spelling | The blog post is free of errors in grammar and spelling. | 5% |
To use this rubric, simply rate the blog post on each criterion using a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest score and 4 being the highest score. Then, calculate the overall score for the blog post by multiplying the score for each criterion by the weight of that criterion and then adding up the products.
For example, if the blog post receives a score of 3 for content, a score of 4 for keyword research, a score of 4 for title tag optimization, a score of 3 for header tag optimization, a score of 4 for image optimization, a score of 4 for internal linking, and a score of 4 for grammar and spelling, then the overall score for the blog post would be 3.8.
This rubric can be used to evaluate student work and to provide students with feedback on their progress. It can also be used to develop assessments that are aligned with the learning objectives of the course.
Here are some additional tips for using the rubric:
- Be clear about your expectations. Explain to students what you are looking for in a well-written and optimized blog post.
- Provide students with examples of high-quality blog posts. This will help students to understand what you are looking for in their own work.
- Give students multiple opportunities to revise their work. This will help them to improve their blog posts and to achieve a higher score.
- Use the rubric to provide students with specific feedback on their work. This feedback will help students to understand their strengths and weaknesses and to improve their blog posts.
I hope this rubric is helpful!
I did not expect a graded approach for this task. But it might make sense to focus on the important tasks. In hindsight, I quite like this approach; it is valuable feedback.
Including a Scoring rubric as a printout looks like a great idea, too. On the other hand, most online courses use their own LMS and do not require this detail on the grading sheet.
ChatGPT
Grading Rubric: On-Page SEO Blog Post Assessment
Course Name: [Course Title]
Assessment: Optimize Your Blog Post for Search Engines
Instructor: [Instructor’s Name]
| Criteria | Excellent (5) | Proficient (4) | Competent (3) | Basic (2) | Limited (1) | Not Evident (0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content Quality | Exceptional content that demonstrates a deep understanding of on-page SEO principles. The blog post is comprehensive, engaging, and highly informative. | Well-written content that demonstrates a strong understanding of on-page SEO principles. The blog post is informative and engaging. | Good content that demonstrates an understanding of on-page SEO principles. The blog post is informative but may lack depth in some areas. | Adequate content with basic understanding of on-page SEO principles. The blog post lacks depth and engagement. | Limited content that shows minimal understanding of on-page SEO principles. The blog post lacks depth, engagement, and relevance. | No content provided or completely off-topic. |
| Keyword Research | Thorough keyword research evident. Keywords are strategically placed throughout the blog post. | Effective keyword research evident. Keywords are well-incorporated into the blog post. | Adequate keyword research evident. Keywords are present but may not be used optimally. | Limited keyword research evident. Keywords are used sparingly and not effectively. | Inadequate keyword research evident. Keywords are irrelevant or missing. | No evidence of keyword research. |
| Meta Tags | All relevant meta tags (title, meta description, and header tags) are optimized for SEO and aligned with the content. | Most relevant meta tags are optimized for SEO and aligned with the content. | Some relevant meta tags are optimized for SEO and aligned with the content. | Few relevant meta tags are optimized for SEO and aligned with the content. | Meta tags are poorly optimized and not aligned with the content. | No evidence of meta tag optimization. |
| Content Structure | The blog post has a clear and logical structure, including headings, subheadings, and a table of contents (if applicable). | The blog post has a clear structure with headings and subheadings. | The blog post has a somewhat clear structure with some headings and subheadings. | The blog post lacks a clear structure with minimal use of headings and subheadings. | The blog post lacks structure, and headings are missing or confusing. | No structure evident. |
| Internal Links | Effective use of internal links to other relevant pages on the website. Links are contextually relevant and enhance user experience. | Good use of internal links to other relevant pages on the website. Links are contextually relevant. | Some use of internal links, but they may not be contextually relevant. | Limited use of internal links, and relevance is unclear. | Minimal use of internal links, and relevance is lacking. | No internal links provided. |
| Readability | Exceptional readability with well-crafted sentences, proper grammar, and minimal errors. | Good readability with mostly well-crafted sentences and minimal errors. | Adequate readability with some sentence structure issues and errors. | Limited readability with frequent sentence structure issues and errors. | Poor readability with significant sentence structure issues and errors. | Unreadable content. |
| Originality | Highly original content that offers a unique perspective or insights. No evidence of plagiarism. | Mostly original content with some minor borrowed ideas properly cited. No evidence of significant plagiarism. | Adequate originality with some borrowed ideas, and proper citations are missing. Limited evidence of plagiarism. | Limited originality with substantial borrowed ideas and inadequate citations. Evidence of plagiarism. | Lack of originality with mostly copied content and minimal citations. Clear evidence of plagiarism. | Complete lack of originality, and content is entirely copied without citations. |
| SEO Tools Usage | Effective use of SEO tools (e.g., Yoast, SEMrush) to optimize the blog post. | Proficient use of SEO tools to optimize the blog post. | Adequate use of SEO tools, but optimization may not be fully realized. | Limited use of SEO tools, and optimization is minimal. | Minimal use of SEO tools, and no optimization evident. | No evidence of using SEO tools. |
| References | Proper citations for external sources and references where necessary. | Mostly proper citations, with a few minor issues in referencing. | Adequate citations but with several referencing errors. | Limited citations with significant referencing errors. | Inadequate citations, and referencing is inconsistent. | No references provided. |
| Overall Score | [Total Score out of 50] | [Total Score out of 40] | [Total Score out of 30] | [Total Score out of 20] | [Total Score out of 10] | [Total Score out of 0] |
Overall Feedback:
[Provide specific feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the blog post. Offer suggestions for improvement and areas that require further attention.]
Please note that this grading rubric is designed for a detailed assessment of a blog post related to on-page SEO in an online course. Instructors can assign points to each criterion and calculate the total score to evaluate the student’s performance.
ChatGPT went into much detail, especially in listing the grading criteria and its description. Everyone who created rubrics will know how long it takes to write these manually. This can save time in your workflow, and I will use this feature in all my future courses.
Bing
Sure, here’s a detailed grading rubric for the assessment of an online course about on-page SEO:
Learning Objective: Optimize your website’s content for search engines.
Assessment: Students will write a blog post optimized for search engines using various on-page SEO techniques.
| Criteria | Excellent (9-10 points) | Good (7-8 points) | Needs Improvement (0-6 points) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Keyword Usage | The blog post effectively uses the primary keyword in the title, headers, and body text. The keyword density is optimal. | The blog post uses the primary keyword, but it could be better integrated or its density could be improved. | The blog post does not effectively use the primary keyword or the keyword density is too low/high. |
| Meta Tags | All meta tags (title, description, etc.) are effectively used and optimized for the primary keyword. | Most meta tags are used and somewhat optimized, but there’s room for improvement. | Meta tags are missing or not effectively optimized for the primary keyword. |
| Image Optimization | All images have alt tags and are optimized for the primary keyword. | Some images are optimized, but others are missing alt tags or could be better optimized. | Images are not effectively optimized for SEO. |
| URL Structure | The URL is short, descriptive, and includes the primary keyword. | The URL includes the primary keyword but could be more descriptive or shorter. | The URL is not descriptive, too long, or does not include the primary keyword. |
| Internal & External Linking | The post includes a good mix of high-quality internal and external links. | The post includes some internal and external links, but could use more or better quality links. | The post lacks internal or external links or includes low-quality links. |
| Content Quality | The content of the post is high-quality, relevant, and provides value to readers while being optimized for search engines. | The content is mostly high-quality and relevant but could be better optimized for search engines. | The content is low-quality, not relevant, or does not provide value to readers. |
Each criterion is worth 10 points for a total of 60 points.
Bing had another interesting approach in choosing a scale from 1-10, but only adding a three-step range description. In addition, it added another relevant criterion not mentioned by Bard or ChatGPT 3.5.
ChatGPT evaluates the Rubric
Based on the provided matrix and grading criteria, here’s an evaluation of the learning objectives generated by ChatGPT for Bard, ChatGPT, and Bing for an online course about on-page SEO:
The evaluation of the rubrics generated by Bard, ChatGPT, and Bing for an online course about on-page SEO is as follows:
Bard’s Rubric:
- Clarity: 4 (Excellent)
- Alignment: 4 (Excellent)
- Specificity: 4 (Excellent)
- Development: 4 (Excellent)
ChatGPT’s Rubric:
- Clarity: 4 (Excellent)
- Alignment: 4 (Excellent)
- Specificity: 4 (Excellent)
- Development: 4 (Excellent)
Bing’s Rubric:
- Clarity: 4 (Excellent)
- Alignment: 4 (Excellent)
- Specificity: 4 (Excellent)
- Development: 4 (Excellent)
All three AI-generated rubrics scored the highest ” Excellent ” rating across all criteria, indicating that they are clear, aligned with the learning objectives and assessment, specific, and appropriate for the target audience. These rubrics provide comprehensive guidance for assessing the on-page SEO blog post effectively.
- Clarity: The rubrics generated by Bard, ChatGPT, and Bing are exceptionally clear and easy to understand. They provide a structured framework for assessing the on-page SEO blog post. The language is concise and free from ambiguity.
- Alignment: All three rubrics align perfectly with the learning objectives, assessment task, and course content. They ensure that the assessment criteria are directly related to the intended outcomes of the course.
- Specificity: The rubrics are highly specific, offering detailed criteria for assessing various aspects of the blog post, such as content quality, keyword usage, meta tags, and more. This specificity is crucial for providing students with clear guidance on what is expected in their work.
- Development: The rubrics are appropriate for the age, level of knowledge, and experience of the learners. They do not contain jargon or complex language that might be confusing for students. The criteria are well-developed and relevant to the assessment task.
Overall, the AI-generated rubrics excel in providing a comprehensive and precise framework for assessing on-page SEO blog posts. They cover all essential aspects of the task and offer educators a valuable tool for evaluating student work effectively. However, it’s essential for educators to review and adapt these rubrics as needed to align with the specific context and objectives of their courses.
Additional feedback Prompt
🤖 Prompt
Provide feedback on how the approaches of the AI were similar and were they differed. Explain their possible approach to the taskThe approaches of the AI, including Bard, ChatGPT, and Bing, in generating the rubrics for the online course about on-page SEO were generally similar in terms of the structure and content of the rubrics. However, there were some subtle differences in the way they presented the information:
Similarities:
- Structure: All three AI-generated rubrics followed a common structure, including criteria such as Clarity, Alignment, Specificity, and Development. This structure provided a clear and consistent framework for evaluating the blog post.
- Criteria: The criteria used in the rubrics were consistent among the AI. Each rubric assessed factors related to content quality, keyword research, meta tags, content structure, internal links, readability, originality, SEO tools usage, and references.
- Scoring: The scoring system used by all three AI was similar, ranging from 1 (Poor) to 4 (Excellent). This scoring system allowed for a quantitative assessment of the blog post based on each criterion.
Differences:
- Presentation: While the criteria were consistent, the presentation of the rubrics varied slightly. For example, Bard’s rubric used a weighted scoring system, which assigned different weights to each criterion, while ChatGPT and Bing used a straightforward 1-4 scale.
- Additional Information: Bing included a section on URL structure evaluation, which was not present in the rubrics generated by Bard and ChatGPT. This additional criterion assessed the quality of the URL in terms of its length, descriptiveness, and inclusion of the primary keyword.
Possible Approach to the Task:
All three AI models likely followed a similar approach in generating the rubrics. They analyzed the provided information, including the learning objectives and assessment tasks, and used their training data to generate criteria and descriptions aligning with the given context. Here’s a possible breakdown of their approach:
- Understanding the Context: The AI models first understood the task’s context, which was to create a rubric for evaluating an on-page SEO blog post in an online course. They recognized that the rubric should align with the learning objectives and be suitable for assessing the specific task.
- Identifying Key Criteria: Based on their training data and knowledge, the AI models identified key criteria commonly used for evaluating on-page SEO content. These criteria include keyword usage, meta tags, content quality, and more.
- Generating Descriptive Criteria: The AI models then generated detailed descriptions for each criterion, ensuring they provided educators with clear guidance on what to assess in the blog post. This involved creating specific, actionable language for each criterion.
- Scoring System: The AI models implemented a scoring system that quantitatively evaluates the blog post’s performance on each criterion. This helps educators assign a numerical score to assess the quality of the work.
- Presentation Style: Each AI model may have used its unique style or formatting preferences to present the rubric. For example, Bard included weighted criteria, while ChatGPT and Bing used a simpler 1-4 scale.
In summary, the AI models applied their natural language understanding and knowledge of SEO principles to create well-structured rubrics that aligned with the learning objectives. While there were some differences in presentation and additional criteria, the core approach of analyzing, generating, and structuring the rubrics was similar among all three AI.
Conclusion
Now, what is the best AI for generating a rubric? It was surprising that there were quite some differences in the output. I liked the different approaches, especially Bard going for a weighted rubric rather than a straightforward scale.
Our journey has been enlightening and, at times, surprising in the realm of AI-generated rubrics. The quest to determine which AI tool excels at generating learning objectives for an online course about on-page SEO has led us through the capabilities of ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing, each offering its unique approach and insights.
We’ve found no one-size-fits-all answer to which AI is the best for this task. Instead, we’ve uncovered a tapestry of strengths and differences that can benefit educators and instructional designers. Bard’s weighted rubric approach adds depth and nuance to the assessment process, while ChatGPT and Bing provide clear and concise criteria with straightforward scales.
The rubric evaluation matrix has served as our trusty companion, guiding us through the intricacies of each AI’s output. All three AI tools have proven exceptional in clarity, alignment, specificity, and development. They offer educators comprehensive guidance for evaluating on-page SEO blog posts effectively.
Ultimately, it’s not a matter of one AI tool ruling them all but a recognition that diversity in AI-generated rubrics can be a valuable asset. Educators and instructional designers can leverage different tools to gain varied perspectives and insights, ultimately enhancing the quality of their assessments and, by extension, their students’ learning experiences.
So, as we conclude this AI experiment – Rubric Edition, we leave you with the understanding that the AI landscape is rich and diverse, and the best tool for the job may vary depending on the specific context and objectives. Embracing this diversity can lead to more robust and finely-tuned rubrics, enhancing the educational journey for all.
Looking forward to your feedback, experiences and suggestions in the comments!
