Draft Universal Mulit-Eliciting Activity Style Creativity Rubric

{ “id”: “universal_mea_creativity”, “version”: “1.0”, “description”: “Single MEA-style creativity rubric for all categories. Reference by exercise/category to avoid per-exercise creativity definitions.”, “source”: “Assessing Cybersecurity Problem-Solving Skills and Creativity of Engineering Students Through Model-Eliciting Activities Using an Analytic Rubric (IEEE); creativity = novelty + usefulness.”, “scope”: “All categories in category_descriptions.md. Documentation and Presentation covered by critical thinking/execution; creativity = Originality, Generation & Selection of Ideas, Value.”, “usage”: “Set creativity.use = \”universal_mea_creativity\” (or reference this file). Optional: use evidence_location from category_descriptions.md for where to look.”, “overall_score”: “mean of the three criterion scores (0-4).”, “optional_assessment”: true, “general_scale_0_4”: { “4”: { “label”: “Fully accomplishes”, “definition”: “Product/work fully accomplishes the criterion; highly unique (originality) or strong extension/value; clear, justified, complete; rationales correct; no extraneous information.” }, “3”: { “label”: “Accomplishes with minor gaps”, “definition”: “Accomplishes the criterion; unique but predictable/conventional or tentative new uses for common ideas; viable with minor errors or rationale gaps.” }, “2”: { “label”: “Somewhat accomplishes”, “definition”: “Partially meets requirements; gaps, errors, or lacks clarity. Does not achieve Level 3.” }, “1”: { “label”: “Does not meet minimum”, “definition”: “Does not achieve Level 2; critical evidence (results, rationale, required output) missing.” }, “0”: { “label”: “No evidence / No product”, “definition”: “No progress or nothing that resembles a minimal response; no substantive procedure or submission; work does not address the criterion.” } }, “criteria”: { “demonstrates_original_approach”: { “short_name”: “Originality”, “definition”: “Novelty of the product or approach-unexpected or inventive use of ideas, structure, or method appropriate to the exercise.”, “scale_0_4”: { “4”: “The product is highly unique, incorporating novel ideas and displaying inventiveness. Approach, structure, or method is clearly original and justified; rationales for key choices are correct and clear.”, “3”: “The product is unique, involving some new ideas or improvements (predictable or conventional) or a tentative attempt to find new uses for common ideas. Approach or structure is explained with minor gaps in rationale.”, “2”: “Some non-standard choice or structure but without clear rationale, or one plausible original idea stated but not carried through. Does not achieve Level 3.”, “1”: “Purely conventional or template-like response with no stated rationale for approach, structure, or choices. Does not achieve Level 2.”, “0”: “No discernible approach, structure, or product; or submission does not address how the work was done or what was produced.” } }, “extends_analysis_with_custom_or_advanced_tooling”: { “short_name”: “Generation & selection of ideas / Extends beyond minimum”, “definition”: “Evidence of generating or selecting ideas, methods, or tools beyond the bare minimum-e.g. additional features, extra tools or scripts, richer structure, justified tool choice, or automation.”, “scale_0_4”: { “4”: “Rich extension beyond the minimum: multiple justified choices of methods, tools, structure, or automation; procedure and artifacts align; rationales correct and complete; functional solution for exercise and similar situations.”, “3”: “Clear extension beyond the minimum; rationale for choices present with minor gaps; artifacts support the claimed approach; shows deliberate selection or generation of ideas.”, “2”: “Some use of extra features, tools, or structure without clear justification or without extending insight; or extension mentioned but not evidenced in artifacts. Does not achieve Level 3.”, “1”: “Only the bare minimum (minimal required features, no extra tools or structure, no automation or extension). Does not achieve Level 2.”, “0”: “No use of required tools/methods demonstrated; or no procedure or artifacts submitted.” } }, “provides_enhanced_interpretation_through_technical_depth”: { “short_name”: “Value / Usefulness”, “definition”: “Usefulness for the exercise-thorough, justified interpretation of output or implications; explanation of why findings or choices matter; meeting exercise needs with technical depth.”, “scale_0_4”: { “4”: “Thorough, well-justified interpretation or explanation; significance tied to objectives; product meets exercise needs as functional solution; technical depth where applicable; no extraneous or vague commentary.”, “3”: “Clear interpretation or explanation with acceptable rationale; technical depth in explaining significance with minor gaps; meets exercise needs but not fully articulated.”, “2”: “Some interpretation or explanation with little justification; why it matters is partial or vague. Does not achieve Level 3.”, “1”: “Only minimal interpretation or no explanation of significance; no clear link to exercise needs or objectives. Does not achieve Level 2.”, “0”: “No interpretation of output or implications; raw output or unannotated submission only; no commentary on relevance or meaning.” } } } }