Assessment and learner evidence

The curriculum architecture defines expected learner outputs, but it does not yet contain released scoring rubrics or model answers.

Current status

This page replaces the former empty rubric placeholder. It records the assessment contract that future module authors must complete; it is not a ready-to-use marking scheme.

Evidence built into each module

Every catalogue entry identifies a reusable learner artefact. Depending on the module, that output may be a:

• dataset or quality-control record;
• plot or feature table;
• protocol or variable dictionary;
• parameter comparison;
• evidence-based conclusion;
• critique of an inference or model; or
• explanation that states an explicit limitation.

Use the output named in the relevant module specification as the starting point for local assessment design.

Requirements for a released assessment

The full module-development template requires:

• observable learning outcomes and an artefact demonstrating each outcome;
• short evidence-based questions;
• explicit artefact criteria;
• checks for likely misconceptions;
• scientific-boundary questions;
• separate maintenance of model answers; and
• lower-level, standard and advanced variants where appropriate.

Scoring weights, grade boundaries and model answers are intentionally not invented here. They must be developed and tested with the complete module.

Scientific interpretation criterion

Assessment should distinguish three levels:

1. Model behaviour — what the implemented Izhikevich-style model did under the stated conditions.
2. Measurement representation — how the board or GUI represented, sampled or transformed that behaviour.
3. Biological interpretation — which conclusions are supported as analogies or concepts, and which mechanistic claims cannot be made.

See Scope, evidence and teaching limits before writing local assessment questions.