Scoring Guide: (1) Entry Point

Students are presented with a story, driving question, problem, or personal experience.  This entry point engages students in the material and the problem at hand.

What do we want to know?

Assess interest level; prior knowledge of important concepts (also misconceptions) and ability to recognize relevant content in the current problem or situation; prior ability to perform important skills.

Note: Use the scoring of the interest level to make instructional decisions rather than claims about learning.

CLICK ON LINKS FOR EXEMPLARS OF EACH SCORING LEVEL.
 

Score	Interest Level Measures a student's interest level in the entry point experience (story, driving question, problem, or personal experience).	Prior Knowledge of Important Concepts Measures a student's ability to identify and describe content information relevant to a particular problem or situation before any deliberate instruction occurs; also includes misconceptions. This recognition shows that a student has acquired a concept, but does not necessarily involve application of the concept.	Prior Ability to Perform Important Skills Measures a student's ability to demonstrate skills relevant to a particular problem or situation before any deliberate instruction occurs.
4 above  and beyond	Goes above and beyond what is considered an adequate interest level in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered age-appropriate knowledge recognition in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered age-appropriate skill development in some significant way.
3 complete and correct	Restates the entry point experience completely and correctly; engages fully in the context of the problem or situation.	Identifies and describes relevant content information completely and correctly.	Demonstrates relevant skills completely and correctly.
2 incomplete	Restates some of the salient features of the entry point experience, but has some omissions; engages in the context of the problem or situation.	Identifies or describes content information, but has some misconceptions or omissions in information.	Demonstrates some relevant skills, but has some minor errors in skills.
1 incorrect	Restates some of the salient features of the entry point experience, but has some incorrect information; engages less than fully in the context of the problem or situation.	Identifies or describes content information, but has incorrect information.	Demonstrates few or no relevant skills; if attempts, has major errors in skills.
0 not done	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.
X	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.

Revised 12/01/01

Source: "understanding science content" variables from BEAR and LeTUS

Scoring Guide: (2) Making Sense of the Prompt

Students reflect on the entry point experience to make sense of what is needed in the problem-solving phase of the project.  They are given the opportunity to make sense of the entry prompt and propose the steps needed to investigate or solve the problem, including the available and necessary resources.

What do we want to know?

Assess problem solving skills like ability to design an investigation; ability to select, implement and record procedures.

CLICK ON LINKS FOR EXEMPLARS OF EACH SCORING LEVEL.
 

Score	Designing Investigation Measures a student's ability to recognize a problem and how to solve it. This includes recognizing the issues, deciding on appropriate way to study or solve a problem, identifying important variables, knowing what resources are required and what are available, and conducting the necessary background research.	Applying Relevant Content Measures a student's ability to use relevant content information in a variety of situations, such as solving problems or resolving issues.
4 above  and beyond	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.
3 complete and correct	States a problem or experimental design that is complete and correct, demonstrating a full understanding of the important issues involved; identifies relevant variables; recognizes what resources are required and available; does all necessary background research. May also describe limitations of approach.	Uses content information to solve problem or resolve issue completely and correctly.
2 incomplete	States a problem or experimental design that is correct, but has some omissions; all variables may not be identified; some required and available resources may not be recognized; some necessary background research may not be done.	Uses content information, but the explanation is incomplete; also may have minor errors.
1 incorrect	States a problem or experimental design that is incorrect, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the important issues; did not identify important variables; some required and available resources are not recognized; some necessary background research is not done.	Uses content information incorrectly and/or provides incorrect information; or provides correct information, but does not use it.
0 not done	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.
X	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.

Revised 12/01/01

Source: "understanding science content" and "doing science" variables from BEAR and LeTUS

Scoring Guide: (3) Using Authentic Data

Students have the opportunity to interact with authentic data that relates to the entry point.  Note that they do not have to actually collect the data themselves; they can use archived data or real-time data collected by someone else.  The data must be connected to the entry point experience.

What do we want to know?

Assess ability to collect data, if applicable; ability to organize and record data; ability to analyze and use data.

CLICK ON LINKS FOR EXEMPLARS OF EACH SCORING LEVEL.
 

Score	Collecting Data Measures a student's ability to obtain data sufficient to support an analysis. Data include such things as observations and measurements. They can be obtained through direct measurement or through other real-time or archived means.	Organizing Data Measures a student's ability to logically display data from an investigation (errors in the data may exist). Data include such things as observations and measurements.	Analyzing and Using Data Measures a student's ability to summarize data, detect patterns, and draw valid conclusions. This includes manipulating information in order to express or support an argument or critical question.
4 above  and  beyond	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.
3 complete and correct	Obtains reasonable and accurate data consistent with the planned procedure or problem.	Records data completely and correctly, or organizes data logically in tables and graphs; errors in the data may exist.	Analyzes and interprets data completely and correctly; conclusion is compatible with data analysis. May also explain unexpected results, judge the value of the investigation, or suggest additional relevant investigation.
2 incomplete	Obtains reasonable data consistent with the planned procedure or problem with some obvious omissions or minor errors.	Records data correctly, or organizes data logically, but records, tables or graphs are incomplete; errors in the data may exist.	Notes patterns or trends, but does so incompletely.
1 incorrect	Obtains data inconsistent with the planned procedure or problem; errors in the data exist.	Records or organizes data, but records are incorrect or illogical; errors in the data may exist.	Attempts an interpretation, but ideas are illogical or show a lack of understanding.
0 not done	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.
X	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.

Revised 12/01/01

Source: "doing science" variables from BEAR and LeTUS; collecting data from http://www2.corvallis.k12.or.us/cheldelin/mcnelll/scientific_inquiry.htm

Scoring Guide: (4) Making Sense of the Data

Students have an opportunity to make sense of the data.  Again, this is contextualized in terms of the entry point.  Often, this step incorporates some type of data visualization, interpretation of representations, identification of relevant data/relationships

What do we want to know?

Assess ability to analyze and use information; ability to construct an explanation of new concepts using critical thinking skills; ability to make connections among related concepts (systems thinking/interactions).

CLICK ON LINKS FOR EXEMPLARS OF EACH SCORING LEVEL.
 

Score	Analyzing and Using Data Measures a student's ability to summarize data, detect patterns, and draw valid conclusions. This includes manipulating information in order to express or support an argument or critical question.	Constructing Explanations Measures a student's ability to construct an explanation of the problem or driving question using critical thinking skills (interpretation, evaluation, inference, explanation, and meta-cognitive self-regulation). This also includes the disposition to pursue fair-mindedly and open-mindedly the reasons and evidence wherever they lead as this is crucial to reaching sound, objective decisions and resolutions to complex, ill-structured problems.	Making Connections among Related Concepts (systems thinking) Measures a student's ability to make connections among related concepts in a system.
4 above  and  beyond	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.
3 complete and correct	Analyzes and interprets data completely and correctly; conclusion is compatible with data analysis. May also explain unexpected results, judge the value of the investigation, or suggest additional relevant investigation.	Interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.; identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con; draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions completely and correctly. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.	Makes connections among related concepts (systems thinking) completely and correctly.
2 incomplete	Notes patterns or trends, but does so incompletely.	Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.; fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments; draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.	Makes connections among related concepts (systems thinking) incompletely.
1 incorrect	Attempts an interpretation, but ideas are illogical or show a lack of understanding.	Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others; fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments; argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions. Exhibits close-mindedness or hostility to reason.	Makes connections among related concepts (systems thinking) incorrectly.
0 not done	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.
X	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.

Revised 12/01/01

Source: "doing science" variables from BEAR and LeTUS; critical thinking definition from http://www.calpress.com/rubric.html

Scoring Guide: (5) Developing an Explanation or Argument

Students have an opportunity to develop an explanation or a scientific argument, using data/representations to support their claims, coordinating evidence and theory (relevance), and decide if they're finished.

What do we want to know?

Assess ability to apply relevant content to the current problem or situation; ability to synthesize ideas; ability to construct an explanation of new concepts using critical thinking skills.

CLICK ON LINKS FOR EXEMPLARS OF EACH SCORING LEVEL.
 

Score	Applying Relevant Content Measures a student's ability to use relevant content information in a variety of situations, such as solving problems or resolving issues.	Synthesizing Ideas Measures a student's ability to synthesize ideas; and to consider ideas in a novel or creative way so that they make more sense together than they do separately.	Constructing Explanations Measures a student's ability to construct an explanation of the problem or driving question using critical thinking skills (interpretation, evaluation, inference, explanation, and meta-cognitive self-regulation). This also includes the disposition to pursue fair-mindedly and open-mindedly the reasons and evidence wherever they lead as this is crucial to reaching sound, objective decisions and resolutions to complex, ill-structured problems.
4 above  and  beyond	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.
3 complete and correct	Uses content information to solve problem or resolve issue completely and correctly.	Synthesizes ideas correctly and completely.	Interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.; identifies relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con; draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions completely and correctly. Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.
2 incomplete	Uses content information, but the explanation is incomplete; also may have minor errors.	Synthesizes ideas incompletely.	Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.; fails to identify strong, relevant counter-arguments; draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions.
1 incorrect	Uses content information incorrectly and/or provides incorrect information; or provides correct information, but does not use it.	Synthesizes ideas incorrectly.	Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions, information, or the points of view of others; fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments; argues using fallacious or irrelevant reasons, and unwarranted claims. Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-interest or preconceptions. Exhibits close-mindedness or hostility to reason.
0 not done	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.
X	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.

Revised 12/01/01

Source: "doing science" variables from BEAR and LeTUS; critical thinking definition from http://www.calpress.com/rubric.html

Scoring Guide: (6) Presenting a Final Artifact Resolving the Entry Point.

Students generate a final artifact (written or oral) that resolves the entry point.

What do we want to know?
Assess level of understanding of new knowledge or skills (growth from before), including the ability to ask more questions/decide if more study is needed; organization and technical aspects of presentation (written or oral) skills.

CLICK ON LINKS FOR EXEMPLARS OF EACH SCORING LEVEL.
 

Score	Growth in Knowledge or Skills Measures a student's growth in knowledge or skills when comparing a final presentation to prior knowledge. This also includes the ability to ask more questions/decide if more study is needed. Note: this is a different kind of variable; usually what the purpose of the entire assessment system is for, not just one variable.	Organization of Presentation Measures a student's ability to logically organize arguments, evidence, and or ideas that relate to the subject being studied.	Technical Aspects of Presentation Measures a student's ability to clearly convey a concept or idea by using the assigned medium appropriately.
4 above  and  beyond	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.
3 complete and correct	Demonstrates growth in knowledge or skills, as appropriate and expected for grade level; appropriately asks more questions/decides if more study is needed.	All parts are present and logically organized.	Clear and easy to understand, with few minor errors.
2 incomplete	Demonstrates some growth in knowledge or skills, but not as much as appropriate and expected for grade level; may appropriately ask more questions/decide if more study is needed.	Shows logical order but a part is missing.	Understandable but clarity is missing in places; technical errors may exist but do not prevent audience from understanding the message.
1 incorrect	Demonstrates no growth in knowledge or skills, as appropriate and expected for grade level; does not appropriately ask more questions/decide if more study is needed.	Lacks logical order.	Unclear and technical errors seriously detract audience from understanding the message.
0  not done	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.
X	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.

Revised 12/01/01

Source: Gabrielle Matese, "reflective inquiry" (specifically the "revising understanding") variables from SIBLE, BEAR and LeTUS; "communicating science information" variables from BEAR and LeTUS

Scoring Guide: (7) Ongoing Reflection (Longitudinal Scaffolds)

Students keep reflecting on the entry point experience throughout the entire investigation, either in journals or class discussion.  They think about the progress they are making in solving the problem or answering the question, etc.  They decide what steps are next.  Students track investigation by documenting the question(s) addressed, strategy for investigating, data analyzed, and student thinking.  Investigation is documented in a way that allows an outside audience to understand the student's inquiry process and thinking.

What do we want to know?
Assess level of reflection on process, including the ability to ask more questions/decide if more study is needed; self-regulation in the monitoring of work and of understanding.

CLICK ON LINKS FOR EXEMPLARS OF EACH SCORING LEVEL.
 

Score	Reflection on Inquiry Documentation and Planning Measures a student's ability to document and plan for progress during an inquiry investigation.	Self-Regulation/ Monitoring Own Progress in Inquiry Work Measures a student's ability to monitor own progress towards an end goal during an inquiry investigation. This also includes the ability to ask more questions/decide if more study is needed.	Self-Regulation/ Monitoring Own Understanding Measures a student's ability to monitor how own thinking has changed over time, and what factors have caused the change.
4 above  and beyond	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.	Goes above and beyond what is considered complete and correct in some significant way.
3 complete and correct	Clearly identifies question(s) being investigated; identifies concrete and appropriate steps for investigating question(s) and explains how steps relate to the question(s) being pursued and to the evidence already collected; steps are reasonable and productive.	Reports work done at an appropriate grain size (i.e. not necessarily every graph they looked at); includes rationale for decisions that is grounded in evidence and relates to the overall plan; evaluates progress relative to overall plan and selects appropriate strategies, revising if necessary; proposes a new, valid investigation based on data.	States inference made, based on evidence; identifies evidence used to make inference; explains inference, with a mechanism or scientific explanation; describes how evidence, mechanism, and inference are related.
2 incomplete	Clearly identifies at least some of the question(s) being investigated; explains steps for pursuing investigation, but plan is not appropriate to the question(s) being pursued or does not explain how plan relates to the question(s) being pursued.	Presents basic summary ("we did this and this and this") at appropriate grain size and may have links from actions to the overall plan and indications for future strategies, but account is missing important elements; either states question raised by investigation of evidence or identifies the problematic observations from the investigation, but comments are informal or flawed.	States inference made, and makes informal or flawed comments about evidence or mechanism; identifies either evidence or mechanism, but does not fully explain how they are related to the inference.
1 incorrect	Does not clearly identify question(s) being investigated, but identifies immediate steps they plan to take or clearly identifies question(s) but shows no evidence of what their plan is to investigate question.	Reports some work done but not at an appropriate grain size (data, strategy, or ideas are captured or recorded, but not consistently or in detail). Relationship between what is recorded and the investigation is unclear; describes a general desire to know more or curiosity about the investigation.	States inference made, but does not describe either evidence or mechanism.
0 not done	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.	Work is missing, illegible, incoherent, or irrelevant.
X	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.	Had no opportunity to respond.

Revised 12/01/01

Source: Gabrielle Matese, "reflective inquiry" (specifically the "monitoring process " "interpreting evidence" and "self-questioning") variables from SIBLE, BEAR and LeTUS