A Common Rubric for Per-Stage Assessment Across the K-12 Informatics Pipeline

The Vietnamese K-12 informatics pipeline that leads from first-encounter programming to IOI-feeder competitive readiness crosses four pedagogically distinct stages: Foundation (first contact, age-appropriate informal programming), Consolidation (Python fluency and decomposition), Specialisation (algorithm-cluster vocabulary), and Competitive (contest-format spine-cluster deployment). Existing assessment practice equips each stage with a different rubric, designed in isolation, often by a different author or institution, with different criterion names, different band labels, and different scoring conventions. The consequence is that a learner's progression across the pipeline is not legible as a single trajectory: a Foundation "proficient" rating does not commensurate with a Specialisation "proficient" rating, and the placement-diagnostic and audit loop must repeatedly re-derive what each rating means. This paper proposes a common rubric — seven criteria scored on a 4-band scale — that is constant in criterion identity across all four stages, but stage-calibrated in band-meaning so that the rubric's difficulty surface tracks the pipeline's progression. The seven criteria are C1 conceptual understanding (notional-machine fidelity), C2 procedural fluency (write-from-spec under stage-appropriate constraints), C3 problem decomposition (subgoal labelling, functionlevel abstraction, cluster-strategy retrieval), C4 debugging-andrevision (error-localisation and corrective revision against named feedback), C5 generalisation and transfer (out-of-distribution probe performance), C6 communication (explanation, code-asdocument, post-mortem narration), and C7 metacognition (selfregulated learning, self-assessment calibration). Each criterion is anchored on a published rubric-design tradition (Andrade and Du 2005; Allen and Tanner 2006; Wiggins and McTighe 2005) or programming-assessment tradition (Lister 2004; Sentance et al. 2019; ACM CC2020) and is stated as a falsifiable observable indicator at each band. The rubric is consumed by the program audit loop as the per-stage scorecard input, crosswalks to the E1.1 seven-band pipeline system, supplies the rubric-row content of the E4.4 two-axis assessment matrix, and acts as the construct-map calibration anchor for the E1.5 placement diagnostic instrument. The contribution is not novel criterion content — the criteria are inherited from the canon — but the cross-stage coherence rule that holds criterion identity constant while shifting band-meaning, and the stage-calibration tables that make the rule operational.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-05-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20131525
Primary Topic
Teaching and Learning Programming
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

A Common Rubric for Per-Stage Assessment Across the K-12 Informatics Pipeline

That Le
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Teaching and Learning Programming
preprint

A Common Rubric for Per-Stage Assessment Across the K-12 Informatics Pipeline

That Le
preprint en

Abstract

The Vietnamese K-12 informatics pipeline that leads from first-encounter programming to IOI-feeder competitive readiness crosses four pedagogically distinct stages: Foundation (first contact, age-appropriate informal programming), Consolidation (Python fluency and decomposition), Specialisation (algorithm-cluster vocabulary), and Competitive (contest-format spine-cluster deployment). Existing assessment practice equips each stage with a different rubric, designed in isolation, often by a different author or institution, with different criterion names, different band labels, and different scoring conventions. The consequence is that a learner's progression across the pipeline is not legible as a single trajectory: a Foundation "proficient" rating does not commensurate with a Specialisation "proficient" rating, and the placement-diagnostic and audit loop must repeatedly re-derive what each rating means. This paper proposes a common rubric — seven criteria scored on a 4-band scale — that is constant in criterion identity across all four stages, but stage-calibrated in band-meaning so that the rubric's difficulty surface tracks the pipeline's progression. The seven criteria are C1 conceptual understanding (notional-machine fidelity), C2 procedural fluency (write-from-spec under stage-appropriate constraints), C3 problem decomposition (subgoal labelling, functionlevel abstraction, cluster-strategy retrieval), C4 debugging-andrevision (error-localisation and corrective revision against named feedback), C5 generalisation and transfer (out-of-distribution probe performance), C6 communication (explanation, code-asdocument, post-mortem narration), and C7 metacognition (selfregulated learning, self-assessment calibration). Each criterion is anchored on a published rubric-design tradition (Andrade and Du 2005; Allen and Tanner 2006; Wiggins and McTighe 2005) or programming-assessment tradition (Lister 2004; Sentance et al. 2019; ACM CC2020) and is stated as a falsifiable observable indicator at each band. The rubric is consumed by the program audit loop as the per-stage scorecard input, crosswalks to the E1.1 seven-band pipeline system, supplies the rubric-row content of the E4.4 two-axis assessment matrix, and acts as the construct-map calibration anchor for the E1.5 placement diagnostic instrument. The contribution is not novel criterion content — the criteria are inherited from the canon — but the cross-stage coherence rule that holds criterion identity constant while shifting band-meaning, and the stage-calibration tables that make the rule operational.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
ElSohly Laboratories (United States) (US)
Quality Education
Teaching and Learning Programming
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.