1
1st Rebuttal
1st Arguments
Opening Statement
Notes
Organ System Debate Rubric:
Exemplary (5)
Proficient (4)
Below Proficient (3)
Incomplete
(0)
All team members have
prepared notes typed or
hand written on debate
day.
Most of the team
members have prepared
notes typed or hand
written on debate day.
Few of the team
members have prepared
notes on debate day.
Nothing
prepared
Speaker stated which body
system you are
representing, gave a brief
overview of the main
function, and all the organs
involved in your system.
Speaker stated which
body system you were
representing, gave a brief
overview of the function,
and listed some of the
organs involved in the
system.
Speaker missed some of
the information required
or had incorrect
information.
No opening
statement
Speaker made quality
claims of why your system
is the most important that
was supported by evidence.
Speaker also argued against
1 specific body system.
Speaker made adequate
claims of why your system
is the most important that
was supported by some
evidence. Speaker also
argued against 1 specific
body system.
Speaker made poor
claims of why your
system is the most
important that was not
supported by evidence.
Speaker did not argue
against 1 specific body
system.
No initial
arguments
All counter-arguments were
accurate, relevant, and
strong. If group was not
challenged, they were able
to describe which group
had the best argument so
far and include evidence as
to why.
Most counter-arguments
were accurate, relevant,
and strong. If not
challenged, they were
able to describe which
group had the best
argument but did not
include evidence.
Counter-arguments were No rebuttal
not accurate and/or
relevant. Were unable
to describe which group
had the best argument if
not challenged.
Speaker made different
quality claims of why your
system is the most
important that was
supported by evidence.
Speaker also argued against
1 specific body system.
Speaker made different
adequate claims of why
your system is the most
important that was
supported by some
evidence. Speaker also
argued against 1 specific
body system.
Speaker made poor
claims of why your
system is the most
important that was not
supported by evidence
or used the same prior
arguments. Speaker did
not argue against 1
specific body system.
All counter-arguments were
accurate, relevant, and
strong. If group was not
challenged, they were able
to describe which group
had the best argument and
include evidence as to why.
Most counter-arguments
were accurate, relevant,
and strong. If not
challenged, they were
able to describe which
group had the best
argument but did not
include evidence.
Counter-arguments were No rebuttal
not accurate and/or
relevant. Were unable
to describe which group
had the best argument if
not challenged.
Speaker described how
their body system works
with multiple other
systems. Speaker gave a
strong final statement of
why their system was
overall the most
important.
Speaker described how
their body system works
with 2-3 other systems.
Speaker gave an adequate
final statement of why
their system was overall
the most important.
Speaker described how No closing
their body system works statement
with one other system.
Speaker gave a poor
final statement of why
their system was overall
the most important.
Debate Etiquette
Closing Statement
2nd Arguments
2
2nd Rebuttal
LIVELY
All team members were
One or two of the debate
respectful and followed the rules were violated.
debate rules including being
respectful and not
interrupting others.
Debate rules were
violated multiple times.
No 2nd
arguments
No
etiquette
Participation
LIVELY
3
All team members spoke
during the debate and had
an assigned role.
Most of the team
members spoke during the
debate and had an
assigned role.
Few of the team
members spoke during
the debate and roles
were not assigned.
Only 1-2
people
spoke
Explanation:
The six general guidelines for developing a rubric by Moskal (2003) are as follows:
The criteria set forth within a scoring rubric should be clearly aligned with the requirements of the
task and the stated goals and objectives (Moskal, paragraph 1).
The rubric created for the body system debate follows Moskal’s guidelines because the
criterion in the grading rubric clearly aligns with the requirements of the task (Moskal, 2003). In
creating the rubric I first created directions and an outline for the debate so that I knew what criteria I
would need to assess. I decided that I wanted to create an analytic rubric that would separate the
individual parts of the debate, and then I would sum up the total number of points at the end
(Mertler, 2001). For example, the students will need to present their initial arguments supported by
evidence and facts and will need to challenge one other group during that argument, so I included
these actions in the rubric under “1st Arguments.”
The criteria set forth in scoring rubrics should be expressed in terms of observable behaviors or
product characteristics (Moskal, paragraph 2).
The criteria set forth in the scoring rubric follow Moskal’s guidelines because they are
observable behaviors that will be seen at different points within the debate (Moskal, 2003). For
LIVELY
4
example in the closing statement, the speaker needs to describe how the body system interact with
most other systems, which will be an observable behavior at the end of the debate.
Scoring rubrics should be written in specific and clear language that the students understand (Moskal,
paragraph 3).
The scoring rubrics are written in clear language that students will be exposed to in discussing
creating an outline and preparing for the debate and offers clear delineations between each level of
performance.
The number of points that are used in the scoring rubric should make sense (Moskal, paragraph 4).
The total number of points for the scoring rubric will be 45 points, which makes sense since
this performance assessment is in place of a summative assessment which has close to the same
point value. Also, there are three columns that will give 100% for the first level of exemplary, 80% for
the second level of proficient, and 60% for below proficient. I also included a 0% category for any
missing parts. I believe this makes sense according to the descriptions within the rubric.
The separation between score levels should be clear (Moskal, paragraph 5).
The difference between score levels is very clear and observable. For example, to get an
exemplary in participation, all team members must have spoken and had assigned roles within the
debate. To get the proficient level, most team members must have spoken and should have assigned
roles.
The statement of the criteria should be fair and free from bias (Moskal, paragraph 6)
LIVELY
5
The rubric is written in very clear and understandable language with concise criteria that
shows a progression and is fair. Every student will be given the same rubric and will have the
opportunity to self-evaluate so there will be little room for bias (Moskal, 2003).
Reflect:
Rubrics are rating scales that help to evaluate student performance (Mertler, 2001). My
performance-based scenario includes having students participate in an organ system debate in which
they are arguing which body system is the most important. In order to perform well in the debate
students will need to understand how their body system interacts with all other body systems and
will need to have an understanding of the other systems.
The rubric will be used to help prepare students for the debate by outlining the requirements
and expectations in each category and step of the debate process. At the beginning of the task, the
teacher and students will look at the different stages of skill development and the final goal level of
achievement (Berman, 2008). The rubric created for the performance assessment follows Berman’s
guidelines because the performance levels have stages of development from incomplete, to below
proficient, proficient, and exemplary (Berman, 2008). Students will be able to use this rubric as an
outline of what needs to be accomplished and will be able to self-evaluate their performance and
readiness before the debate, using the rubric and look at areas in which skills may need to be
developed.
In self-assessing progress, students can use the rubric to identify areas in which they are
performing well and may need guidance from the teacher or preparation (Berman, 2008). Teachers
are also able to detail feedback sing a rubric and show students how well they did in each category of
the debate so that they can improve and prepare differently if needed for future debates.
LIVELY
6
References
Berman, S. (2008). Performance-based learning: Aligning experiential tasks and assessment to
increase learning (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(25). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25
Moskal, B. M. (2003). Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and
scoring rubrics. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(14). 34-38. Retrieved from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=14