Involving Students in Simulated (and Real)
Democratic Processes and Procedures:

Assessing Simulations

Assessing a simulation can be challenging. Students taking part in simulations may have roles that require different skills and use of different knowledge. Other students may have roles that do not allow them to showcase what they have learned (think of the bailiff in a mock trial, for example). Often, students work in group, so it is difficult to assess the role of each individual within the group project.

Describing expectations to students in a meaningful way is challenging and time-consuming; students may understand the teachers’ expectations more clearly if they have viewed videotape of the type of simulation they are taking part in, but that adds time to an already-lengthy classroom activity. Furthermore, some teachers do not feel comfortable assessing students’ performance in a single simulation activity because they believe students should have the opportunity to practice with a moot court or mock trial before they are assessed; yet many teachers only use a moot court once during a course.

For these reasons, many teachers use simulations as instructional tools and then employ another type of tool to assess what students learned from the simulated experience. Often, this tool is an essay assignment; for example, students who have taken part in a moot court might right a judicial opinion explaining how they would decide the case, while students who have taken part in a legislative hearing might right a letter to a public official taking and defending a position on the issue. Other teachers use a paper-and-pencil test or a discussion to assess what students learned through a simulation.

Other teachers do assess simulations directly. The first step in doing so is to identify clearly the key objectives the teacher wants students to achieve. The second step is to define criteria by which achievement of those objectives can be assessed. Why is completing these steps important? In working with teachers who assess simulations, we have noted that their assessment criteria sometimes do not match their objectives. Perhaps the most common case of such a disconnect is with the mock trial; while teachers describe objectives related to understanding the strengths and weakness of the judicial system, but their assessments often focus instead on students’ speaking skills.
Examine this mock trial rubric from the Annenberg CPB web site. What objectives does this rubric assess? What challenges do you think using this rubric might pose?

Now examine the lesson plan lesson plan for which this rubric was developed.

Do the rubric and standards addressed match? Why or why not? Could you adapt the rubric to better reflect the standards addressed?
Developing and communicating scoring criteria for simulations is a challenging task. The scoring guides developed for large programs such as the national We the People simulated congressional hearing may also be useful in classrooms or as models in developing scoring tools.
Examine the two assessment tools below and think about how you might be able to adapt them to reflect your goals and criteria for success.

Jury Deliberation Checklist
___Clearly explains applicable law.
___Shows understanding of judge’s instructions
___Accurately describes who has the burden of proof and on what the burden of proof is based
___Offers an opinion on the case and supports the opinion with evidence and testimony
___Weighs evidence
___Listens attentively to others
___Asks clarifying questions of other jurors
___Uses negotiating and persuasive skills to reach a verdict
Moot Court Scoring Guide

Exemplary Performance

The student presents a persuasive and compelling argument that links the case facts with specific examples of relevant law, facts, precedent, and general legal principles. The student anticipates and convincingly addresses all relevant arguments of the opposing side. The student insightfully and accurately incorporates into the argument the potential impact on society of the court’s decision.

Proficient Performance

The student presents a persuasive argument that uses law, facts, precedent, and general legal principles that are generally linked to the case facts. The student addresses major arguments of the opposing side. The student accurately incorporates into the argument most of the potential impact of the court’s decision.

Basic Performance

The student presents an argument that is incomplete due to partial or inaccurate uses of law, facts, precedent, and general legal principles with only some linkages to the facts of the case. The student does not address all major arguments of the opposing side or addresses them inadequately. The student’s incorporation of the potential impact of the court’s decision is partly accurate or incomplete.