RUBIQUANT: An Intelligent Computational Framework for Governed Rubric Assessment Using the Adaptive Weighted Penalty Model
Keywords:
rubric assessment, decision support system, computational assessment, educational technology, formative evaluationAbstract
Rubric-assessment approach is commonly adopted in tertiary institutions, but the application of such assessment technique continues to be inconsistent due to manual computation of scores, assessor subjectivity in marking, and lack of transparency in the calculation of marks. This paper outlines the development and adoption of RUBIQUANT, an automatic rubric assessment approach, implemented in Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic for Applications, for governed and traceable mark computation. The system is based on the Adaptive Weighted Penalty Model and was iteratively designed from the experience obtained from real academic usage within four successive semesters.
References
Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (2020). Re-imagining University Assessment in a Digital World. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(7), 1021–1033. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1776897
Bloxham, S., Den-Outer, B., Hudson, J., & Price, M. (2016). Let’s Stop the Pretence of Consistent Marking: Exploring the Multiple Limitations of Assessment Criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1024607
Brookhart, S. M. (2018). How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading. ASCD.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing Achievement Gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery.” Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31.
Harden, R. M. (2002). Developments in Outcome-based Education. Medical Teacher, 24(2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220120669
Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y.-K. (2020). Utilising Learning Analytics for Study Success: Reflections on Current Empirical Findings. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-00142-z
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The Use of Scoring Rubrics: Reliability, Validity and Educational Consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. Pearson.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering. Academic Press.
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2020). A Critical Review of the Arguments against the Use of Rubrics. Educational Research Review, 30, 100329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100329
Panko, R. R. (2008). What We Know about Spreadsheet Errors. Journal of End User Computing, 10(2), 15–21.
Power, D. J. (2002). Decision Support Systems: Concepts and Resources for Managers. Quorum Books.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A Review of Rubric Use in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862859
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shim, J. P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J. F., Power, D. J., Sharda, R., & Carlsson, C. (2002). Past, Present, and Future of Decision Support Technology. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00139-7
Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic Review of Research on Artificial Intelligence Applications in Higher Education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mohamad Irwan Pandapotan Harahap
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors of MJII retain copyright to the content of the articles.
The content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 which allows content to be copied, adapted, displayed, distributed, republished, or otherwise re-used for any purpose, including for adaptation and commercial use provided the content is attributed without any restriction.
Authors Rights
The Journal grants you the following non-exclusive rights, subject to giving propoer acknowledgement to the original journal. The authors may:
(i) to reprint or reproduce the contribution, in whole or in part, in any publication of your interest.
(ii) to use material for teaching purposes; including availability of the matarial in academic course.
(iii) to post a copy of the contribution on your personal or institutional web server, provided that the server is non-commercial and there are no charges for access, and
(iv) to deposit a copy of the contribution in a non-commercial data repository maintained by an institution of which you are a member.
Author's Agreement
Author(s) guarantee the journal the following:
(i) that the contribution is their original work;
(ii) that it contains, no matter what, content that is defamatory or is otherwise unlawful or which invades rights of privacy or publicity or infringes any proprietary rights (including copyright);
(iii) that the contribution has not been published elsewhere in whole or in part and that no agreement to publish is outstanding other than this agreement. Author(s) agree to be responsible and hold the journal, its editors, staff and affiliate organizations harmless against any claims arising from or related to the breach or inaccuracy of any of the guarantees listed above.
Disclaimer
The editorial team of the MJII and the publication team of Academica Press Solutions share no responsibility regarding the views and opinions expressed by the authors.
The content published in MJII is Open Access and can be shared, adapted, reproduced, reprinted, after appropriate acknowledgment and giving due credit to the author(s) work.
