AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT

UNIT SUMMARY SHEET

Name___Brittany Clouser________________

Target (>95%) Acceptable (80%-94%)

Number of
Students
Percentage of
Students

Unacceptable (<80%)

Total

52

20

73

71.2%

27.4%

1.4%

100%

A brief description of the authentic assessment.

The students performed in a courtroom style debate given their assigned roles in each group.
They had to gather their arguments and arrange their thoughts on the Building an Argument
organizer. Lastly, they presented their findings in courtroom debate style to an assigned jury who
used their own organizer to decide which argument was the strongest.

How will you remediate for students who demonstrated an unacceptable level of achievement?
Remediation will include small group instruction on the techniques of a proper debate. I will
provide independent stations to improve upon students understanding of argumentative essays.
In the stations I will include stations for creating a strong counter argument and how to back up
supporting reasons with textual evidence.

Attach a copy of the assessment used.

Name _________________________

Period ______

Oklahoma Court Rubric - The Outsiders Authentic Assessment

Category

Respect for Other All

statements,
Team
body
language, and
responses
were
respectful and
were in
appropriate
language.

Statements
and
responses
were
respectful and
used
appropriate
language, but
once or twice
body
language was
not.

Most
statements
and
responses
were
respectful and
in appropriate
language, but
there was one
sarcastic
remark.

Use of
Facts/Statistics

Every major
point was
adequately
supported
with relevant
facts,
statistics
and/or
examples.

Every major
Every point
point was
was not
supported
supported.
with facts,
statistics
and/or
examples, but
the relevance
of some was
questionable.

Every major
point was well
supported
with several
relevant facts,
statistics
and/or
examples.

Statements,
Did not
responses
complete
and/or body
language
were
consistently
not respectful.

Did not
complete

Category

Counterargument was
accurate,
relevant and
strong.
Weakness
was also
relevant.

Counterargument was
accurate,
relevant, and
strong, but
weakness
was unclear.

Counterargument was
accurate and
relevant, but
weakness
was not
included.

Counterarguments
were not
accurate
and/or
relevant.

Understanding of The team

clearly
Topic
understood the
topic in-depth
and presented
their
information
forcefully and
convincingly.

The team
clearly
undestood the
topic in-depth
and presented
their
information
with ease.

The team
seemed to
understand the
main points of
the topic and
presented
those with
ease.

The team did Did not

not show an
complete
adequate
understanding
of the topic.

Rebuttal

0
Did not
complete