Authentic Assessment Rubric

 Assessment Rubric

Criteria	Level 4 (Exceeds Standard)	Level 3 (Meets Standard)	Level 2 (Approaching)	Level 1 (Below)
Clear identification of argument and supporting claims	Thesis and all supporting claims are precisely and insightfully identified; nuanced distinctions are captured.	Central argument and most supporting claims clearly identified; minor nuances may be missed.	Argument identified but supporting claims are partially or vaguely stated; some confusion present.	Argument unclear or inaccurate; supporting claims missing or incorrect.
Coherent application of a specific critical lens	Lens is expertly and consistently applied, revealing sophisticated insights into the argument's validity.	Lens is logically applied and supports a sound evaluation of the argument.	Lens application is partial or mechanical; connections to argument validity are underdeveloped.	Lens is misapplied or not evident, yielding little or no evaluative insight.
Accurate evaluation of evidence for relevance and sufficiency	Evidence is critically analyzed for both relevance and sufficiency with nuanced discussion of credibility.	Evidence relevance and sufficiency are accurately evaluated with clear justification.	Some discussion of evidence relevance or sufficiency, but analysis is incomplete or generalized.	Little or no analysis of evidence; relevance and sufficiency not addressed.
Clear, organized presentation (written, visual, or oral)	Presentation is polished, well‑organized, and engaging; multimodal elements enhance clarity and impact.	Information is logically organized and clear; minor lapses in flow or engagement.	Organization is uneven; clarity occasionally hindered by formatting or delivery issues.	Presentation lacks organization; difficult to follow and hinders comprehension.
Peer feedback integration and revision evident in final post/presentation	Peer feedback is thoughtfully incorporated, demonstrating substantial revision and reflection on critique.	Peer feedback is acknowledged and incorporated, leading to noticeable improvements.	Limited incorporation of peer feedback; revisions superficial or incomplete.	No evidence of incorporating peer feedback or revising work.

References
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.

New York State Education Department. (2017). New York State Next Generation English Language Arts Learning Standards.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.