Add rubric files

data/rubrics/p1_rubrics.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+[
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "1.1",
+        "criteria": "Accuracy and Detail: Is the information about service recipients (e.g., age, needs) precise and comprehensive, supported by at least 2 credible references?, Relevance: Does the information directly relate to the needs or context of XYZ students for the project?, Source Quality: Are references listed and from reliable, verifiable sources (e.g., academic articles, official reports)?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "1.2",
+        "criteria": "Depth of Insight: Does it explain at least 2 specific ways AI enhances teaching/learning (e.g., personalization, automation)?, Application to Project: Is the information explicitly linked to the project’s AI focus?, Source Credibility: Are at least 2 references provided, and are they from reputable sources (e.g., journals, expert blogs)?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "1.3",
+        "criteria": "Clarity of Title: Is the title concise, descriptive, and reflective of AI/STEM focus (e.g., 'AI-Powered STEM Adventures')?, Topic Suitability: Are 2–3 specific AI/STEM topics listed and justified with at least 2 selection criteria (e.g., age-appropriateness, interest)?, Rationale Strength: Is the explanation for suitability logical and tied to XYZ students’ needs?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "1.4",
+        "criteria": "Specificity: Are the 1–3 objectives clear, measurable, and outcome-focused (e.g., 'Students will code an AI chatbot' vs. 'Learn AI')?, Alignment with AI/STEM: Do objectives directly support the AI/STEM topics identified in 1.3?, Feasibility: Are objectives realistic given the project scope and XYZ students’ abilities?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "2.1",
+        "criteria": "Relevance to Project: Do at least 2 games explicitly tie to the AI/STEM topics from 1.3 (e.g., 'AI Guess Who' for pattern recognition)?, Creativity: Are the games original or uniquely adapted, with clear rules and objectives (e.g., measurable outcomes like 'identify 5 AI traits')?, Engagement: Are the games interactive and appealing, likely to sustain XYZ students’ attention for 10+ minutes?",
+        "weight": 0.30
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "2.2",
+        "criteria": "Task Clarity: Are 3+ tasks per member specific and actionable (e.g., 'Design 10 AI cards' vs. 'Help with games')?, Balance: Do tasks show equitable distribution across all members (e.g., similar effort levels)?, Relevance to Games: Are tasks directly tied to preparing or delivering the ice-breaking games?",
+        "weight": 0.20
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "3.1",
+        "criteria": "Specificity: Are 2–3 STEM elements (e.g., coding, engineering) clearly identified?, Connection to AI: Do elements link to the AI focus (e.g., 'coding AI algorithms')?, Breadth: Do they cover multiple STEM areas (e.g., science + technology)?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "3.2",
+        "criteria": "Targeted Skills: Are 2–3 specific abilities (e.g., problem-solving, critical thinking) listed?, Relevance to STEM: Do abilities align with STEM learning goals?, Measurability: Are abilities observable or assessable (e.g., 'solve 5 puzzles' vs. 'get better')?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "3.3",
+        "criteria": "Identification: Are 2–3 specific hurdles (e.g., 'difficulty with abstract concepts') listed?, Relevance to STEM/AI: Do hurdles relate to the project’s STEM/AI focus?, Evidence: Are hurdles supported by observations or references from 1.1?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "3.4",
+        "criteria": "Strategy Clarity: Are 2+ specific methods described (e.g., 'use visuals for coding')?, Hurdle Address: Do methods directly tackle hurdles from 3.3?, STEM Integration: Are methods tied to teaching STEM elements from 3.1?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "4.1",
+        "criteria": "Completeness: Are 5+ materials/parts listed, covering all games from 2.1?, Specificity: Are items detailed (e.g., '50 index cards' vs. 'cards')?, Suitability: Are materials appropriate for the games and XYZ students (e.g., safe, accessible)?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "4.2",
+        "criteria": "Relevance: Are 3+ tools listed, necessary for making the games’ materials?, Precision: Are tools specific (e.g., 'scissors' vs. 'cutting tool')?, Availability: Are tools practical and likely available to the team?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    }
+]

data/rubrics/p2_rubrics.json

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+[
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "1.1",
+        "criteria": "Clarity and Specificity: Are objectives concise, measurable, and clear?, Relevance to STEM: Do they align with STEM goals and address learning hurdles?, Feasibility: Are they achievable for XYZ students?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "1.2",
+        "criteria": "Variety and Appropriateness: Does content suit objectives and audience?, Support for Objectives: Does it help achieve the stated goals?, Engagement: Is it engaging for students?",
+        "weight": 0.05
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "2.1",
+        "criteria": "Integration of AI/STEM: Does the design effectively use content to introduce AI and teach STEM elements?, Alignment with Project Goals: Does it address specific objectives (Proposal Part I, Section 2) and STEM facilitation (Section 3)?, Creativity and Innovation: Is the design novel and tailored to overcome learning hurdles?",
+        "weight": 0.20
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "2.2",
+        "criteria": "Detail and Clarity: Is the plan detailed with clear steps to create kit items?, Timeline and Milestones: Are realistic timelines and milestones included?, Practicality: Is the plan feasible given resources and constraints?",
+        "weight": 0.15
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "2.3",
+        "criteria": "Fun Factor: Does the explanation show how the kit makes learning enjoyable?, Student-Centric: Is it tailored to XYZ students’ interests and abilities?, Motivation: Does it foster curiosity or enthusiasm for STEM?",
+        "weight": 0.15
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "3.1",
+        "criteria": "Structure: Is the diagram clear, using a divide-and-conquer approach?, Task Definition: Are tasks well-defined with descriptions and assigned roles?, Collaboration: Does it reflect effective teamwork and responsibility distribution?",
+        "weight": 0.15
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "4.1",
+        "criteria": "Interest Arousal: Does the plan creatively spark XYZ students’ STEM curiosity?, Relevance: Is the introduction tied to the kit’s STEM focus?, Approachability: Is it accessible and engaging for the target age group?",
+        "weight": 0.10
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "4.2",
+        "criteria": "Hurdle Identification: Are specific learning hurdles (e.g., for Hong Chi students) clearly identified?, Solution Effectiveness: Are practical strategies provided to address these hurdles?, Empathy and Support: Does it show understanding and support for students’ needs?",
+        "weight": 0.10
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "5.1",
+        "criteria": "Proactivity: Are potential uncertainties (e.g., absences) anticipated?, Solutions: Are actionable responses provided?, Resilience: Does it enhance kit delivery under uncertainty?",
+        "weight": 0.03
+    },
+    {
+        "subcomponent": "5.2",
+        "criteria": "Reflection: Does it outline individual and team performance review?, Improvement: Are specific improvement steps proposed?",
+        "weight": 0.02
+    }
+]