Diseñador de rúbrica de un solo punto

You are designing a single-point rubric using the principles established by Fluckiger (2010) and Sadler (1989). Follow these rules PRECISELY — they are the quality standard for every rubric produced.

CRITICAL DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Criterion precision determines evidence quality. A vague criterion produces vague column entries and the rubric fails. Write the criterion first — what does meeting this learning target actually look like as a specific, observable quality? Every other decision follows from that.

---

STEP 1 — FORMAT DECISION:

Apply this logic in order:
- If student_generated is "yes": skip to the STUDENT-GENERATED MODE section below. Do not produce a criterion.
- If format is explicitly provided as "two-column": use two-column format.
- If format is explicitly provided as "three-column": use three-column format.
- If band is A or B: use two-column format.
- If student_level suggests ages 5–9 (e.g. "Year 1", "age 6", "Kindergarten"): use two-column format.
- Default: use three-column format. Calibrate language to student_level if provided; otherwise write for a general secondary audience.

---

STEP 2 — CRITERION WRITING RULES (non-negotiable):

The criterion is a single precise statement of what quality looks like. Apply every rule:

1. **One integrated quality, not a checklist.** Do not list components. "A claim that is supported by evidence and addresses a counterargument" is one integrated quality. "Has a claim, has evidence, has a counterargument" is a checklist — it fails.
2. **Descriptive language, not evaluative language.** Describe what the work or behaviour looks like. Never use: good, excellent, thorough, adequate, appropriate, strong, clear (without specifying what clarity means). Instead: specify the observable feature.
3. **Specific enough to generate concrete evidence.** A student reading this criterion must be able to point to a specific moment, sentence, example, or action that belongs in each column. If they could only write "I did well" or "I need to improve," the criterion is too vague.
4. **Calibrated to the audience.** Neither too simple (patronising) nor too demanding (inaccessible). If band is provided, calibrate to band expectations. If student_level is provided, calibrate language to that level.
5. **Scoped to the learning target.** Does not add requirements the learning target does not contain. Does not drop requirements it does contain.
6. **Single sentence where possible.** Never more than two sentences.

Write the criterion BEFORE constructing the rubric table. State it explicitly and apply the quality check:
- Is it one integrated quality, not a list?
- Is the language descriptive not evaluative?
- Would a student know exactly what kind of evidence to write in each column?
- Is it calibrated to the audience?
- Does it match what the learning target requires, no more and no less?

If it fails any check, rewrite before continuing.

---

STEP 3 — RUBRIC OUTPUT:

**Three-column format:**

Present the rubric as a markdown table. The criterion goes in the centre column header. The outer columns contain the guidance text as a standing instruction for whoever completes the rubric — these are NOT filled in by you.

| Areas for growth | [Criterion statement] | Areas of strength |
|---|---|---|
| Record specific evidence here — moments, examples, or observations that show progress toward the criterion but do not yet fully meet it | [Criterion statement repeated] | Record specific evidence here — moments, examples, or observations that demonstrate or go beyond the criterion |

Do not fill in the evidence columns. They are left blank for the user to complete.

**Two-column format:**

| [Criterion statement] | My reflection |
|---|---|
| [Criterion statement repeated] | Describe a specific moment or example that shows where you are with this right now. |

---

STUDENT-GENERATED MODE:

When student_generated is "yes", do not produce a criterion statement. Instead produce:

**Framing sentence for the student:**
"Think about what doing this really well looks like for you personally. Write one sentence that describes it."

**Scaffolding prompts (provide 2–3):**
- "What would someone watching you be able to see or hear?"
- "What is the difference between doing this well and doing it adequately — what's the specific thing that changes?"
- "If you were helping a friend get better at this, what would you tell them to focus on?"

**Note to teacher:**
The student-generated criterion is personal and specific to this student. Do not correct, standardise, or replace it with your own language. The value is in the student's own articulation of quality — even if it is imperfect. With younger learners (Band A–B or ages 5–9), co-generate the criterion through conversation rather than expecting independent writing.

---

STEP 4 — USAGE GUIDANCE:

Identify which of the following purposes applies, apply the closest match if exact match is not found, and note the adaptation.

- **Student self-assessment before submission:** Student completes both outer columns independently using their own work as evidence. They then decide whether to revise based on what they wrote. The teacher does not complete the rubric — the student's evidence is the formative data.
- **Peer feedback:** The peer completes the columns based on their reading of the work. The owner reads the completed rubric and decides what to act on. The peer does not give a grade or level — only evidence.
- **Teacher formative feedback:** Teacher completes the columns with specific observations from the work. Shares with student as the basis for a feedback conversation, not as a verdict or grade. The evidence in the columns IS the feedback.
- **Pre-task planning:** Student completes only the "areas of strength" column as a planning tool — what specific evidence do I want to be able to put here by the end? The left column remains blank until after the task.
- **Personal reflection:** Student completes the rubric in relation to their own experience, behaviour, or growth over time — not a specific product. Evidence is drawn from memory, observation, or journal entries.

---

STEP 5 — CRITERION DESIGN NOTES:

Explain:
- Why the criterion was written this way
- What it deliberately includes and what it deliberately excludes
- What made it difficult to write precisely, if anything

---

STEP 6 — KNOWN LIMITATIONS:

Apply these standing limitations, plus any specific to the learning target provided:

1. The criterion statement requires judgment to write well — too broad produces vague evidence, too narrow becomes a checklist. If the output criterion feels like either of these, flag it to the user.
2. Single-point rubrics work best when students have already been introduced to the learning target and have some experience with the domain — they are formative tools, not introductory ones.
3. The student-generated version is only as useful as the quality of the student's self-knowledge. With younger learners the teacher may need to co-generate the criterion through conversation.
4. This skill does not produce grades or summative levels. If a summative judgment is needed, use coherent-rubric-logic-builder or criterion-referenced-rubric-generator instead.

---

Your task is to design a single-point rubric for:

**Learning target:** not provided
**Purpose:** not provided

The following optional context may or may not be provided. Use whatever is available; ignore any fields marked "not provided."

**Band:** not provided — if not provided, use three-column format unless student_level indicates ages 5–9.
**Format:** not provided — if provided, overrides band-based default.
**Student generated:** not provided — if "yes", produce the student-generated prompt instead of a criterion.
**Task description:** not provided — if provided, use to calibrate criterion precision.
**Student level:** not provided — if provided, use to calibrate language.

Return your output in this exact format:

## Single-Point Rubric: [Learning Target Summary]

**Learning target:** [The exact learning target as provided]
**Purpose:** [The stated purpose]
**Format selected:** [Three-column / Two-column / Student-generated] — [brief reason]

### Criterion

[State the criterion here before the table. One sentence, two maximum.]

**Quality check:**
- One integrated quality, not a list: [Yes / No — if No, explain and rewrite]
- Descriptive not evaluative: [Yes / No — if No, explain and rewrite]
- Generates concrete evidence: [Yes / No — if No, explain and rewrite]
- Calibrated to audience: [Yes / brief note]
- Scoped to learning target: [Yes / brief note]

### Rubric

[Insert the appropriate format table here]

### Criterion Design Notes

[Why this criterion; what it includes and excludes; what was difficult to make precise]

### Usage Guidance

[How to use this rubric for the specified purpose — what the student, peer, or teacher does with the completed columns]

### Known Limitations

[Standing limitations plus any specific to this learning target]

---

IMPORTANT: Write your entire response in neutral Spanish, the kind any Spanish-speaking teacher can read regardless of country. Address a group as «ustedes»; never use the second-person-plural verb forms and possessives that only Spain uses. Do not name the school stages, exams or education laws of any single country: identify the level by the students’ age or by what they can already do. Prefer vocabulary that travels across the Spanish-speaking world over words specific to one country. Use the register a secondary-school teacher would use with colleagues. Keep pedagogical terms in Spanish. Do not translate the names of cited academic frameworks or authors. Match the length of the deliverable to what the task needs: cover the substance, but do not pad it with filler sections, redundant summaries, or boilerplate.

Resaltado en ámbar: los valores que ocupan los huecos del prompt. En gris: campos opcionales que has dejado vacíos — el prompt le indica al asistente que los ignore.