Student Name: ___________________________________School: _______________________
Scoring Guide
Each benchmark
out of 10 points
Qualitative Assessment Project
Year-Two Debaters: Out-of-Round Assessment
Benchmark 35 – Electronic and Library Research
6 points
QUESTION 1
1. Where did you do your debate research this season? Did you do electronic research or library research or both?
What were some of the sources you used? Where did you get your citations from? And identify one research
technique that you used for the first time this season (i.e., that you hadn't used before). Was it useful?
5-6 points
- Both library and online research
- Use of citations from a range: camp, wikis, debaters from other schools, or other sources (which
may include sources obtained from an opponent in-round) AND clear and sufficient explanation
of research resources (not just list)
- Identifies a new research technique and a sufficient explanation of its usefulness (no penalty for
not finding the technique useful)
3-4 points
- library OR online research, but not both
- Use of citations from a limited range of sources – e.g., camp, wikis OR narrow and limited
explanation of research resources (only provides a list)
- Identifies a new research technique but an inadequate, or unreflective explanation of its
usefulness (no penalty for not finding the technique useful)
1-2 points
- ONLY online research
- No clear explanation of citation sources
- Vague, inadequate, or non-existent explanation of research resources
- Identifies a new research technique but no attempt to explain its usefullness
0 points
- No research
4 points
QUESTION 2
2. Identify and explain your two most productive and two least productive techniques for researching and finding
debate evidence this season.
3-4 points
- Two most productive AND two least productive techniques for researching
- Explanations evince a seriousness of purpose in researching
- clear and sufficient explanation of techniques
1-2 points:
- Only 2-3 techniques (not 4) explained
- Explanations reveal a lack of depth or seriousness in research; perhaps a failure to appreciate its
importance
- Vague or insufficient explanation of techniques
0 points
- Only 1 technique and vague, insufficient, or non-existent explanation
- Likely that no actual debate research performed
Benchmark 36 – Targeted Debate Research
6 points
QUESTION 1
Describe one instance this season where you went researching for a piece of evidence to support a specific
argument and you found it, and one instance where you went researching for a specific piece of evidence and
you didn’t find it. What would you say caused the different outcomes?
5-6 points
- Descriptions of both evidence that was found and evidence that was not found
- Clear and sufficient explanation of what caused different outcomes
3-4 points
- Partial descriptions of evidence that was found and/or evidence that was not found
- Clear but brief explanation of what caused different outcomes
1-2 points
- Partial descriptions of evidence that was found/not found OR that little research was conducted
- Vague or insufficient explanation of what caused different outcomes
0 points
- No research described
4 points
QUESTION 2
Paraphrase one piece of evidence that you have researched on your own this year that you have used in a debate
round. What argument did it make (tag)? What is the source (cite)? In hindsight, was the piece of new evidence
you researched helpful in the round(s) in which it was used? Briefly describe why or why not
3-4 points
- Paraphrase of evidence used in round, including argument (tag) and source (cite)
- Clear and sufficient explanation of evidence’s usefulness in round (if evidence was not useful, can
still earn full points with sufficient explanation)
1-2 points
- Incomplete paraphrase of evidence used in round, vague argument (tag) and/or source (cite) OR
that student cut evidence in anticipation of a specific argument but was never able to use in round
- Unclear and insufficient explanation of evidence’s usefulness in round
0 points
- Student cut no evidence to be used in round OR no description of research and no explanation of
usefulness in round
Benchmark 39 – Reading Key Articles and Books
5 points
QUESTION 1
Describe the book or article that you read on this year’s debate topic that made the biggest impact on you.
Identify as much of the citation as you remember, including the title. Summarize its contents. Is it an
important text for understanding this year’s topic? If so, explain why.
5 points
Answer indicates:
- Description of book/article read, including sufficient summary of content
- A complete or nearly complete citation
- Clear and sufficient explanation of its importance
3-4 points
Answer indicates:
- Partial description of book/article read, including insufficient summary of content
- Failed attempt to include citation
- Explanation of the source’s relevance to the topic, but little support of its importance
1-2 points
Answer indicates:
- Insufficient description of book/article read, including no summary of content
- No citation, or a very flawed or evidently erroneous citation
- No explanation of relevance to topic, let alone importance
0 points
- No book/article described
5 points
QUESTION 2
In debate, we research to find evidence, but we also research to become better informed about the issues and
arguments that we are debating about in rounds. Did you read any articles or books this year that were mainly
valuable for the background and content knowledge they provided you? If so, describe a specific example, and
explain how the knowledge you gleaned from this text helped you in rounds, even though it may not have
supplied you with evidence.
5 points
- Description of book/article read that evinces comprehension
- Clear and sufficient explanation of an example of the way that background information gleaned
from the source had an impact on the student’s in-round debating
3-4 points
- Vague or partially sufficient description of book/article read
- Unclear OR insufficient explanation of an example of the way that background information
gleaned from the source had an impact on the student’s in-round debating
1-2 points
- Very inadequate attempt to describe book/article read
- Very little or no explanation of relevance to student’s debating
0 points
- No book/article read or described
- Only describe a documentary or film
Benchmark 40 – Understanding Broader Themes and Contexts of Topic
4 points
QUESTION 1
[Excerpt from Jaffe evidence] Identify two arguments that are supported by some portion of the text above,
and explain the connection between the arguments and the textual support.
3-4 points
-Answer identifies two arguments relating to the key concepts the text raise AND a clear and sufficient
explanation of the connection between the argument and the textual support - most likely including 2 of
the following arguments:
-Aggressive US action strengthens Venezuela anti-Americanism
-Less aggressive US action toward Venezuela will strengthen US-Latin American Relations
-Less aggressive US action toward Venezuela will lead to less leftist Latin American governments
-US-Venezuelan relations increase US-Latin American economic ties
-US-Latin American economic ties and/or Free Trade increase economic prosperity
-Answer may include alternative arguments or a combination of the above as long as logical internal link
chains are made that clearly and sufficiently describe or reference the textual support.
-Answer may have some but minimal erroneous or unclear explanation mixed in with its clear explanation.
1-2 points
-Answer indicates clear and sufficient explanation of the connection between the argument and the textual
support of 1 key argument the excerpt raises.
-Answer may have some moderate to moderately extensive erroneous or unclear explanation roughly
balancing its clear and correct explanation.
0 points
Answer does not explain any key arguments, or explanation is overwhelmingly erroneous or unclear.
3 points
QUESTION 2
1. Briefly describe and explain one broader theme that you think this year’s debate topic has been about. We're
not looking for a re-statement of the resolution here, but rather a common conflict or central issue that
emerged specific to debates about this year’s resolution.
3 points
Answer indicates:
- Description of at least one broader theme that is cogent and plausible
- Sufficient explanation of theme’s relation to the topic
1-2 points
Answer indicates:
- Description of one broader theme but one that is either generic or implausible
- Vague explanation of theme’s relation to the topic
0 points
- No theme or explanation
3 points
QUESTION 3
1. Briefly describe two connections between this year’s topic arguments and current political events, news items
or other real-world happenings that you have observed and know about.
3 points
Answer indicates:
- Description of at least one actual, specific political event, news item or real-world event
- Sufficient, precise explanation of event’s relation to the topic and/or arguments
1-2 points
Answer indicates:
- Description of one political event, news item or real-world event, though it may lack specificity or
currency
- Vague, imprecise, or superficial explanation of event’s relation to the topic
0 points
- No event or explanation