Method
The method behind the standard.
Course evaluation is a measurement problem before it is a software problem. OneRubric is built on four method choices that decide whether the resulting evidence holds up in a review.
Method areas
Four choices that make evidence defensible.
Standardisation
One rubric — curriculum, delivery, environment, feedback — applied to every course and term. Comparability is the precondition for evidence; bespoke per-department surveys can't be aggregated or defended.
Anonymity & integrity
Responses are non-attributable by faculty or leadership, with minimum-cohort thresholds to prevent inference. Anonymity is enforced in the processing model so candour — and therefore validity — is protected.
Closed-loop verification
A concern produces an owned, time-boxed action plan; the next period's data is checked against it. Improvement is measured against a prior baseline, not asserted in a report.
Accreditation mapping
The same instrument maps to GTEC·NAB, NUC, and regional frameworks, configured with your quality directorate so evidence matches how your institution already reports.
The loop
Standardise → surface → verify.
The mechanism, stated plainly. This describes what the method is designed to produce — illustrative of the model, not a claim about a specific institution.
Standardise
Same rubric, every course → results are comparable across faculty, programme and period.
Surface
Raw evaluations become a plain-language read of what changed and where the risk is.
Verify
Each action plan is checked against the next period's data — measured, not asserted.
Why it holds up
Aligned to the bodies that review you.
The credibility signal for an evaluation standard is not citations — it is whether a review body accepts the evidence. OneRubric structures evidence for GTEC·NAB, NUC, and CHEA-style regional frameworks, with anonymity and audit trails that withstand scrutiny.