How to Assess

Student Performance

in Science:

Using Classroom Assessments

to Enhance Learning

© SERVE, 2005

First Edition, 2005

PRODUCED BY

The SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

WRITTEN BY

Susan M. Butler, Ph.D., Senior Program Specialist, SERVE

Nancy D. McMunn, Project Director, SERVE

EDITED BY

Christy Casbon, Editorial Consultant

Donna Nalley, Ph.D., Director of Publications, SERVE

DESIGNED BY

Tracy Hamilton, Assistant Program Specialist, SERVE

This publication does not necessarily refl ect the views or policies of the 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, nor does 

mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This document was originally developed with funding from the Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. 

ED-01-CO-0015.

Associated with the 

School of Education,

University of North 

Carolina at Greensboro
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments .........................................................PAGE iv

CHAPTER 1: Current Views on Assessment ....................................... PAGE 1

1 ......... Purpose of this manual

1 ......... Introduction

2 ......... What is the Classroom Assessment Cycle?

CHAPTER 2: Clarifying Learning Targets ........................................... PAGE 7

7 ......... What do we want students to know and be able to do?

10 ....... Learning targets

12 ....... Why should we classify standards and benchmarks into learning 

target categories?

12 ....... Unpacking the curriculum for a unit of study

CHAPTER 3: Gathering Evidence in a Variety of Ways:

Methods of Assessment ................................................PAGE 16

16 ....... Methods of assessment

22 ....... Aligning assessment methods with learning targets

CHAPTER 4: Gathering Evidence in a Variety of Ways:

Meaningful Feedback ................................................. PAGE 25

25 ....... Purposes of assessment

26 ....... Types of formative feedback

34 ....... Creating high quality analytical rubrics

37 ....... Sample rubrics

CHAPTER 5: Analyzing Assessment Data and Making

Instructional Modifi cations ..........................................PAGE 51

53 ....... Analysis

58 ....... Instructional modifi cations

58 ....... Differentiation

CHAPTER 6: Implementing the Cycle .............................................. PAGE 62

63 ....... Elementary level implementation of the Classroom Assessment 

Cycle: Third grade, Mr. Tighe’s class

71 ....... Middle school level implementation of the Classroom Assessment 

Cycle: Seventh grade, Mrs. Nagura’s class

84 ....... High school level implementation of the Classroom Assessment 

Cycle: Tenth grade, Mrs. Green’s class.

APPENDIX: Grading and Reporting Student Performance

in Science .....................................................................PAGE 91

91 ....... Grade reliability

97 ....... Grade book formats

References ..................................................................PAGE 103
Acknowledgments

This manual builds upon the R&D experience acknowledged in Volume I, 

“How to Assess Student Performance in Science: Going Beyond MultipleChoice Tests.” We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the teachers 

involved in this project.

In addition, this manual was reviewed by both assessment and science experts. These reviewers provided many valuable suggestions that 

enhanced the quality of this publication. These reviewers included:

● LaShanda Colbert, Science Specialist, Mississippi Department of 

Education, Jackson, Mississippi

● Patricia Schenck, Resource Teacher, Assessment and 

Accountability Division, Bay District Schools, Panama City, Florida 

● Wilma Guthrie, National Board Certifi ed Science Teacher, 

Elementary level, Hanceville, Alabama

● Keith Eades, Assistant Superintendent, Currituck County Schools, 

Currituck, North Carolina

● Susan M. Brookhart, Educational Consultant, Duquesne University 

and Brookhart Enterprises LLC, Helena, Montana

● Dawn Hudson, Science/Health Specialist, National Board 

Facilitator, Paulding County Schools, Dallas, Georgia

● Michael Vigliano, Math and Science, SERVE, Greensboro, 

North Carolina

● Patricia McClure, Math and Science, SERVE, Greensboro

North Carolina

iv
1

Current Views on 

Assessment

Purpose of This Manual

The purpose of this manual is to enhance the use of formative assessment practices in the classroom. These formative practices are ones 

that support students while they are learning. The practices also 

ensure that students receive feedback and guidance on their performances in a timely manner so they can make improvements to those 

performances before being evaluated. In the pursuit of enhancing 

formative assessment practices, this publication is designed to help 

teachers do the following:

1) Clarify science learning targets for their students (CHAPTER TWO).

2) Understand the range of assessment methods available to 

teachers and explore the alignment of these methods to 

learning targets (CHAPTERS THREE and FOUR).

3) Analyze assessment information to determine individual 

student learning needs (CHAPTER FIVE).

4) Modify instructional and/or assessment practices to enhance 

student learning (CHAPTER FIVE).

5) Refl ect on current grading practices and determine if current 

methods accurately portray student achievement (APPENDIX).

This publication is not intended simply as an informative text but also 

as a resource that encourages self-refl ection on current practices. 

We hope you will interact with it, respond to the questions posed, 

implement some of the suggested strategies, and then refl ect on 

such implementation. Through these activities, this manual can serve 

as an opportunity for you to examine your science assessment practices. It is most helpful if two or more teachers work through the manual together. The synergy that results from professionals sharing ideas 

will greatly enhance the learning experience.

Introduction

Before we can concentrate on “how to assess,” we must fi rst defi ne 

assessment assessment. What does it mean to “assess”? What is the purpose of . What does it mean to “assess”? What is the purpose of 

assessment? Are there different methods of assessment? With a clear 

defi nition of assessment and a defi nite purpose given for this activity, 

we can then begin to develop assessments appropriate for science 

classes. 

Assessment Assessment simply means a process, strategy, or tool for collecting simply means a process, strategy, or tool for collecting

information about the learning process of individuals or groups. Such 

assessment has two broad goals: 1) to provide feedback to students 

about their own learning, and 2) to monitor the effectiveness of the 

instruction. A variety of assessments may be used to monitor the 

effectiveness of instruction, ranging from the large-scale achievement 

tests used to calculate Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child 

Left Behind Act down to the observation of students’ facial expresCHAPTER ONE
2

sions by a lecturing teacher. Students can also receive feedback in

diverse ways (e.g., comments on a lab report or scores on a highstakes test).

In this publication, however, we will concentrate on assessments 

that occur on a day-to-day basis within the science classroom. 

Such classroom assessments classroom assessments constitute an ongoing process in which constitute an ongoing process in which 

teachers and students interact to promote enhanced student learning. This process involves using a variety of assessment strategies and 

tools to collect information about student learning and then using 

the data collected to diagnose learning problems, monitor student 

progress, or provide meaningful and timely feedback to students. 

Therefore, the main purpose of this publication is to promote an 

assessment process that enhances student achievement in science.

This purpose of using classroom assessment to improve student performance is echoed throughout the current classroom assessment 

research literature. Some (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 

2004; Black & Wiliam, 1998) label such assessments as formative

in nature and emphasize that assessment is formative “when the 

evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching to meet student 

needs” (Black & Wiliam, 1998, p. 140). Chappuis, Stiggins, Arter, & 

Chappuis (2004, p. 35), echoing a term coined by Black and Wiliam, 

characterize this enhancing of student performance assessment process as “assessment for learning” and state that when “they assess 

for learning, teachers use classroom assessment and the continuous 

fl ow of information about student achievement that it provides to 

advance, not merely check on, student learning.” Such assessment 

for learning is assessment that helps students identify the strengths 

and weaknesses of their performance so that they can improve their 

achievement. It is differentiated from “assessment of learning,” which 

simply provides a means of rating students, or comparing them to 

one another. Assessment of learning, unlike assessment for learning, 

does not focus on feedback for improvement. 

What is the Classroom Assessment Cycle?

In order to fulfi ll the goals listed above and to promote assessment for 

learning, we must fi rst explain the Classroom Assessment Cycle. This 

cycle outlines an assessment process that focuses on improving student performance. The four main steps of the cycle are:

1) Clarifying learning targets

2) Gathering evidence in a variety of ways

3) Analyzing assessment data

4) Modifying instruction

Let us examine a common assessment scenario and analyze it to see 

how it conforms to each step in the Classroom Assessment Cycle.

SCENARIO ONE: Mr. Wei, a sixth-grade teacher, teaches a unit 

on soil formation and then gives a unit test with multiplechoice, true/false, and matching items to assess students’ 

retention of the information. Students are told about the 

test one week in advance and are instructed not to bring 

resource materials with them to the test. Students’ tests are 

scored and returned and form the basis of the six weeks’ 

grade. The teacher moves on to a new unit.
3

CLARIFYING LEARNING TARGETS: There is no mention in the above scenario of learning targets. What is important for the students to know 

about soil formation? Are the important concepts drawn from the 

sixth-grade curriculum? Does the teacher expect the students to simply learn factual information, or are other concepts important? For 

instance, did they learn skills in operating scientifi c equipment, critical 

thinking skills, skills in creating such products as lab reports, papers, 

models, etc.? For the scenario to exemplify the Classroom Assessment 

Cycle, the teacher would need to set particular learning targets for 

the instruction, plan the assessments and the instruction based upon 

these targets, and most importantly, share these learning targets with 

students students prior to the actual instruction. prior to the actual instruction.

GATHERING EVIDENCE IN A VARIETY OF WAYS: The scenario mentions only 

one assessment—the unit test. It does not mention any formative 

assessments that may have prepared students to take this test. For 

example, did the teacher check comprehension of concepts before 

scheduling the test? How was this done? What day-to-day practices helped assure the teacher that students were ready for the unit 

test? Since this test is the only assessment mentioned and because 

it primarily uses only one form of assessment (that of the selected 

response), this scenario does not support the idea of gathering evidence in a variety of ways. 

Selected responses Selected responses are those in which students choose their answers are those in which students choose their answers

from a given list, as with multiple-choice, true/false, or matching questions. Mr. Wei’s test did not incorporate opportunities for students to 

construct their own answers. Student-created essays, short-answers, 

graphs, or illustrations would all be examples of constructed responses

that could provide a window into student thinking and reveal student 

understanding of the concepts being tested.

FIGURE 1.1 Classroom Assessment Cycle

��������

�����������

�������

�����������

��������

���������

�������

�������

�����������

���������

�������

��������

�����������

����
4

ANALYZING ASSESSMENT DATA: The teacher apparently did not collect 

any data to determine that students were prepared for the test, 

and he also failed to provide opportunities for students to receive 

feedback on their performances before being tested. The testing 

data itself does not appear to be analyzed, as the teacher immediately moves on to another unit. To comply with this quadrant of the 

Classroom Assessment Cycle, the teacher would need to use the 

assessment data to make inferences about student learning, focusing not only on the whole class, but on individual student learning 

needs. The assessment data would need to be collected prior to 

instruction, during instruction, and after instruction. Mr. Wei appears 

to only collect data after instruction, and even this data he does not 

appear to analyze.

MODIFYING INSTRUCTION: Since the assessment data from the ending 

exam were not analyzed, no instructional modifi cations were made. 

From the scenario, it appears that the teacher will simply move on to 

a new unit, regardless of the assessment results.

If Scenario One does not comply with the precepts of the Classroom 

Assessment Cycle, what might such compliance look like? Scenario 

Two provides a classroom exemplar of this cycle in action.

SCENARIO TWO: Mr. Rahib, a high-school chemistry teacher 

in Florida, is planning a unit on the Periodic Table of 

Elements. Mr. Rahib wants his students to understand the 

organization of this table and be able to use the table to 

predict properties of particular elements. Before planning 

the unit, he consults the state standards and chooses two 

that are appropriate for the unit, including “The students 

will know that elements are arranged into groups and families based on similarities in electron structure and that their 

physical and chemical properties can be predicted” and 

“The students will know that investigations are conducted 

to explore new phenomena, to check on previous results, 

to test how well a theory predicts, and to compare different 

theories.” Mr. Rahib decides that the culminating assessment will be a performance-based one in which students 

determine the physical and chemical properties of particular elements and then predict the physical and chemical 

properties of untested elements. To prepare students for 

this assessment, Mr. Rahib decides to: a) assign textbook 

readings, b) hold class discussions of these readings, c) 

give a lecture on the atomic theory, d) provide students 

with a set of cards showing physical characteristics of persons and then help them organize the cards into “families” 

and predict how missing family members may look, e) ask 

students to provide explanations of the atomic theory and 

of the organization of the periodic table in their science 

journals, and f) assign a laboratory investigation of physical and chemical properties of particular elements, with 

a concomitant laboratory report. He then designs rubrics 

(scoring guides) to help him assess the class discussions, 

science journals, and lab reports, as well as one for the 

culminating assessment. He shares the learning targets 

with students, using language they understand, before 

beginning the unit. As students progress through the unit, 

they are provided with written feedback via the rubrics as 
5

well as verbal feedback from Mr. Rahib. Mr. Rahib uses 

these formative assessments (a–f, above) to align his 

instruction with student learning needs and to determine 

when students are adequately prepared for the culminating assessment. He uses both the formative and the culminating (summative) assessment results to determine which 

students have diffi culties in making predictions and selects 

instructional activities that will aid these students. These 

may include one-on-one instruction, peer tutoring, use of 

science manipulatives, etc.

In comparing the two scenarios, we see that the students in Mr. 

Rahib’s class are provided with the learning targets prior to instruction, they have multiple opportunities to receive feedback on their 

learning, and the assessments utilized are varied and diverse. Mr. 

Rahib constantly monitors student learning via scoring rubrics, analyzes the assessment data to determine if further instruction is necessary, and then modifi es instruction accordingly, both for the entire 

class and for individual students. In Mr. Rahib’s class, it is also evident 

that students are expected to do more than simply learn facts. This 

did not appear to be the case in Mr. Wei’s class.

Traditionally, the goal of most subject area courses (like Mr. Wei’s science class) has been for students to be able to recognize or recall 

important facts, concepts, or relationships that have been explained 

to them. In the past, we have almost exclusively valued students’ success at retaining and bringing forth a sample of the information they 

have retained. When a teacher emphasizes factual knowledge on 

a test, students conclude that remembering facts is the goal. When 

students are not given an opportunity to retest or improve their work, 

they may conclude that improvement is not valued. If higher-order 

thinking, problem-solving, and critical thinking are valued, then 

classroom assessments should lend value to them. It is important to 

remember that how and what we test sends a clear message to students about what is valued.

A key point to remember as you go through this manual is that assessing students involves gathering information about what they know 

or can do. If throughout 12 years of school students are assessed 

only on passive, non-creative work (worksheets, multiple-choice 

tests), how likely is it that they will become problem-solvers, creative 

producers, effective communicators, and self-directed learners? In 

Chapter Two, we will explore a variety of learning targets for students 

that will enable them to reach their full potentials. 

APPLICATION

You may wish to reflect upon your own current 

assessment practices to determine if you are 

using all the quadrants in the Classroom

Assessment Cycle with your science classes. 

Figure 1.2 may be of help in this process.
6

FIGURE 1.2

Refl ecting on Your Assessment Practices

Directions: Directions: irections: Place a check in the column that best matches your Place a check in the column that best matches your

current practices.

To aid in identifying areas on which you may wish to concentrate, 

consider the following:

STATEMENTS 1–3 relate to the “Clarify Learning Targets” quadrant of the 

Classroom Assessment Cycle.

STATEMENTS 4–6 relate to the “Gather Evidence in a Variety of Ways” 

quadrant of the Classroom Assessment Cycle.

STATEMENTS 7 relates to the “Analyze Assessment Data” quadrant of 

the Classroom Assessment Cycle.

STATEMENTS 8–9 relate to the “Modify Instruction” quadrant of the 

Classroom Assessment Cycle.

STATEMENT OFTEN SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER

1. I use the state curriculum to help identify 

student learning targets.

2. I share the learning targets with students 

before beginning instruction.

3. I emphasize many types of learning targets 

in my teaching, not relying on factual 

learning targets alone.

4. I plan my assessments before planning my 

instruction.

5. I incorporate multiple formative 

assessments within each unit, so students 

have many opportunities to receive 

feedback on their learning.

6. I create rubrics (scoring guides) to help 

students understand their academic 

weaknesses and strengths.

7. I examine assessment data and make 

inferences about whole class and 

individual student learning.

8. I use formative assessment data to revise/

retool my teaching within the unit. 

9. I use formative assessment data to 

individualize instruction for struggling 

students.
7

CHAPTER TWO

Clarifying Learning 

Targets

What Do We Want Students to Know

and Be Able to Do?

Before we can assess and teach our students, we must fi rst decide 

what we want them to know and be able to do. We usually start with 

broad goals and then break those down into smaller components. 

For example, The National Science Education Standards he National Science Education Standards publica- publication (1996, p. ix), written by the National Research Council, begins 

with this goal statement: “This nation has established as a goal that 

all students should achieve scientifi c 

literacy.” The booklet goes on to 

describe literacy: “Scientifi c literacy enables people to use 

scientifi c principles and processes in making personal 

decisions and to participate 

in discussions of scientifi c 

issues that affect society” 

(1996, p. ix).

With this description, the National Research Council begins to break 

its overall goal (scientifi c literacy) into smaller component parts, as 

depicted in FIGURE 2.1. One component emphasizes scientifi c knowledge of concepts/principles, while the other emphasizes knowledge 

of scientifi c processes.

������������������� �������������������

�������������

���������������������

���������������

��������������������

FIGURE 2.1

To aid students in acquiring knowledge of scientifi c principles and 

processes, the National Research Council has written content standards within eight different categories:

● Unifying concepts and processes in science

● Science as inquiry

● Physical science

��������

���������

�������
8

● Life science

● Earth and space science

● Science and technology

● Science in personal and social perspectives

● History and nature of science (1996, p. 104)

Within each of these eight categories, we fi nd the actual content 

standards. Each science content standard is then further explicated 

by a “Guide to the Content Standard” section. FIGURE 2.2 displays this 

organizational scheme graphically using examples from the K–4 level.

In this manner, the National Science Standards are broken down from 

complex, generalized statements to more specifi c ones. The tasks 

listed in FIGURE 2.2 under the “Guide to the Content Standard” category show the most specifi c level included in the National Science 

Standards. The implication is that if students can complete all these 

tasks successfully, then they have the “abilities necessary to do scientifi c inquiry.”

Like the National Science Education Standards, your own state curriculum may begin with broad goals that are then dissected into increasingly smaller component parts. For example, in Florida, the state science curriculum begins with the subject area (science), then breaks 

this into strands (The Nature of Matter, Energy, Force and Motion, 

Processes That Shape the Earth, Earth and Space, Processes of Life, 

and How Living Things Interact With Their Environment). Under each 

of these strands, a number of standards further explain what students 

should know and be able to do. The standards are then supported by 

benchmarks, which occur as the most specifi c level of the curricular 

hierarchy. Let’s take a look at examples of these different levels from 

the K–2 science curriculum displayed in FIGURE 2.3. (Sunshine State 

Standards, 2005, www.fi rn.edu/doe/curric/prek12/pdf/prk-2g.pdf).

�������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������

�� ��������������������������������������������

�� �����������������������������������������������������

���������� ���������������������������� ������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������

� �����������������������������������������������������������

�����������

� ���������������������������������������

� �����������������������������������������������������

�����������������

� ����������������������������������������������

� ����������������������������������������������������������

FIGURE 2.2
9

In this fi gure, we note the same trend we observed in the National 

Science Education Standards. Each set begins with more general 

goals and moves to higher 

specifi city.

Of course, greater specifi city 

makes it easier for the teacher to 

determine what students are required 

to know and be able to do. Such 

specifi city enables teachers to plan 

meaningful instruction as they know 

what concepts students will need to understand and what abilities 

students will need to develop. One of the authors of this publication 

once experienced some confusion with a state science standard 

that read, “Students will appreciate the diversity of life.” Because of 

the general nature of this statement and the huge scope of scientifi c concepts this standard could encompass, it was hard to know 

exactly what content knowledge was being required of the students! 

More specifi city, as is now the trend in state and national curricula, 

certainly makes written goals easier to interpret and implement.

Content standards and benchmarks, then, help teachers understand what students need to know and be able to do. Teachers 

use this knowledge to plan meaningful instruction that will prepare 

students for assessments based upon these standards and benchmarks. However, are standards and benchmarks truly specifi c 

enough? Will teachers completely understand how they should 

assess and how they should teach by simply looking at the standards 

and benchmarks for their science courses? We have often found 

that more clarifi cation is needed for teachers to truly understand 

what they are required to teach. Therefore, this next section of the 

����������������

���������������������

�������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������

�����������

��� ����������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

��� ���������������������������������������������������������

������

��� �������������������������������������������������������

� ����������������������������������������������������������

� ���������������������������������������������������������

� ������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������

������������������������

������������������������������

������������������������

FIGURE 2.3

�����������

��������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������
10

manual describes ways to “unpack” the standards and benchmarks

so that the intent of each can be clearly understood.

Learning Targets

Some professional developers believe categorizing standards and 

benchmarks into learning targets learning targets can aid in this unpacking process can aid in this unpacking process 

(Stiggins, 2001; Regional Educational Laboratories, 1998; Butler & 

McMunn, 2006). Stiggins (2001, p. 66) describes fi ve categories of 

such learning targets:

● Knowledge

● Reasoning

● Performance Skills

● Products

● Disposition

Let’s take some state science competencies (standards) and objectives (benchmarks) from North Carolina’s science curriculum and see 

how they can be further classifi ed into learning target categories. 

(See FIGURE 2.4.)

����������������������������

�������������������������������

������������������������

���������

�����������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������

���������

���������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������

������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������

��������

���������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������

�������������������������������

������������������������

FIGURE 2.4
11

KNOWLEDGE TARGETS are analogous to the lower levels of Bloom’s 

Taxonomy (Recall and Comprehension). You might think of knowledge targets as “knowing the facts.” You can recognize standards 

and benchmarks that would be classifi ed as knowledge targets 

because they often start with a few key verbs: identify, list, explain, 

describe, know. Knowledge targets are important because all of the . Knowledge targets are important because all of the

higher-level thinking skills depend upon students possessing a knowledge base. Therefore, when we ask students to learn such laws/principles as, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” 

or “Matter is neither created nor destroyed,” we are using knowledge 

targets. Knowledge targets also encompass such vocabulary defi nitions as, “matter,” “photosynthesis,” and “metamorphosis.”

REASONING TARGETS abound in science classes. The key verbs found in 

standards and benchmarks that denote such reasoning targets are: 

classify, categorize, compare, contrast, analyze, evaluate. When we 

ask students to differentiate between eukaryotes and prokaryotes or 

to classify elements as solids, liquids, or gases at room temperatures, 

we are using reasoning targets. Writing conclusions to lab reports of 

scientifi c investigations will also call for reasoning as students must 

refl ect on their observations, look for patterns, form inferences, and 

then write rationales for these inferences. This analysis process is defi -

nitely a reasoning one. Problem-solving activities also fall within the 

reasoning targets category, especially when students must evaluate 

several alternative solutions and choose the “best” one.

Students learning to operate scientifi c equipment, make oral presentations, use graphing calculators or use computer applications 

are all utilizing PERFORMANCE SKILLS TARGETS. Teachers can recognize 

standards and benchmarks that call for performance skills when they 

see such key verbs as: demonstrate, show, operate, use, assemble, 

conduct conduct. In science class, students are called upon to learn many . In science class, students are called upon to learn many

different types of skills. These may range from such abstract skills as 

comprehending subject-specifi c text to more tangible, concrete skills 

as focusing a microscope. Each skill is important and will aid students 

in becoming more scientifi cally literate and adept.

Besides learning skills in science class, students also are required 

to construct products. Students may keep science journals, write 

lab reports, construct models, create illustrations, make posters, 

etc. All of these would qualify as products and would fall under the 

PRODUCTS LEARNING TARGET category. Key verbs to look for in standards 

and benchmarks for product learning targets are: make, construct, 

depict, write, create, design, record.

DISPOSITIONAL TARGETS encompass the 

“unwritten” expectations we have for 

students. Some of these expectations 

may include: ● Be self-motivated. ● Exhibit positive attitudes. ● Work cooperatively. ● View self as capable.

Such dispositional learning targets 

do not usually appear in the written 

objectives or benchmarks for an academic subject. These targets 

are not usually graded; it is more common for them to be assessed 

��������

�����������������������������

�����������������������

�����������������������������

�������������������������

���������������������

�����������������������������

�������������������������

���������������
12

informally. They are also more susceptible than the other achievement targets to “teacher-pleasing” or socially acceptable responses. 

Dispositional targets are rarely entirely cognitive in nature; they are 

more motivational and affective. Just because these targets do not 

appear in curricula, however, does not mean that teachers do not 

have such goals in mind for students.

Why Should We Classify Standards and 

Benchmarks Into Learning Target Categories?

We have examined some science standards and benchmarks and 

then classifi ed them into learning target categories. Why is this important or necessary? The primary reason for doing so is to clarify, as specifi cally as possible, what we want students to know and be able to 

do. We need to understand if the standard or benchmark is asking for 

students to learn a skill, use reasoning or critical thinking, know basic 

facts, or create a quality product. 

We have already stated that increased specifi city helps the teacher 

understand the learning requirements for students. The use of learning targets simply enhances the specifi city of the standard or benchmark. When we examine standards and benchmarks for embedded 

learning targets, we are “unpacking” these statements and teasing 

out the “meat” or substance from them. We are using the learning 

targets to help us understand exactly what students should know 

and be able to do. In the next chapter, we will learn that knowing 

the learning targets can aid us in creating valid assessments—assessments that truly test whether a student has met a particular target.

Unpacking the Curriculum for a Unit of Study

Before we move to the next chapter, let’s take a look at a fi fth-grade 

unit of study to see how learning targets may overlap and interconnect to teach science concepts. This unit of study covers earth and 

space science concepts. The teacher, Mrs. Vega, consults the state 

standards for Mississippi and fi nds the following standard and benchmarks (Mississippi State Curriculum Frameworks, http://marcopolo.mde.

k12.ms.us/frameworks/science/sci_05.html):

6. Investigate the structure of the Earth.

a. Investigate the structure of the atmosphere (gas-air), 

hydrosphere (liquid-water), and lithosphere (solid-land).

b. Examine how organisms affect the composition of the Earth 

and its atmosphere.

c. Analyze processes that cause changes on Earth.

d. Explore fossils as indicators of how life and environmental 

conditions have changed.

FIGURE 2.5 displays a unit planning sheet Mrs. Vega developed for 

this Earth Science unit. In this planning sheet, Mrs. Vega unpacks the 

curriculum into embedded learning targets and then begins to list 

assessments that the students will do to prove they successfully met 

each learning target. She then brainstorms possible instructional 

activities that will prepare students for these assessments. By creating 

such a planning sheet, Mrs. Vega ensures that she actually addresses 

each of the learning targets embedded in her curriculum.
13

FIGURE 2.5

Unit Planning Sheet

LEARNING 

TARGETS

SOURCE IN 

CURRICULUM

POSSIBLE 

ASSESSMENTS

POSSIBLE

INSTRUCTIONAL 

ACTIVITIES

KNOWLEDGE 6a–d: All require 

some knowledge, as 

vocabulary defi nitions, 

components of the 

Earth and atmosphere, 

knowledge of 

processes

• KWL sheet

• Vocabulary 

worksheet: 

Fill-in-the-blanks

• Vocabulary quiz: 

Matching

• Solid, Liquid, Gas 

worksheet: Label and 

Matching

• Journal entries

• Textbook readings

• Teacher lecture

• Comprehension 

questions

• Vocabulary wall

• Demonstrations

• Modeling

• Class discussions

• Pair shares

REASONING 6b: Analysis of effects

6c: Analysis of 

processes

6d: Analysis of how 

fossils are indicators 

and how life has 

changed

• Short-answer 

questions

• Concept-map rubric

• Higher-order questions

• Cause/effect tables

• Brainstorming

• Concept mapping

• Demonstrations

• Inquiry-based 

experiments

• Seminars/class 

discussions

• Before/after pictures

PERFORMANCE 

SKILLS

6a: Must learn skills 

needed to conduct an 

investigation (process 

skills)

• Observation of Skills 

checklist

• Writing hypotheses 

worksheet

• Demonstrations

• Inquiry-based 

experiments

• Set class a problem to 

solve—have students 

note steps they took to 

solve it

PRODUCTS 6b: Composition of 

Earth model 

6d: Fossil experiment 

lab report

• Lab Report Rubric

• Practice lab report

• Earth Composition 

Model Rubric

• Work together to create 

rubrics

• Critique products from 

previous years

DISPOSITIONS None in curriculum, 

but want students 

to be able to work 

cooperatively in groups

• Teacher observations

• Notify rule-breakers of 

particular rule broken

• Brainstorm rules for group 

work

• Prioritize rules

This planning sheet provides Mrs. Vega with a good basic unit plan. 

She now needs to create a pacing guide (e.g., How many days will 

the unit take? What will be done each day? Which particular benchmarks will be covered each day?) and choose the specifi c activities 

(e.g., What experiments will the students do? How will inquiry activities 

be implemented? What readings do they need to complete? What 

problem will be used to introduce performance skills in investigations?) 

and design the assessments (e.g., What short-answer questions 

will be asked? What criteria will be used to judge the model of the 

Earth’s composition?) Once these questions are answered, Mrs. Vega 

can create her daily lesson plans feeling confi dent that these plans 

include instruction and assessments aligned with the learning targets 

found in the curriculum.
14

As an example of moving from the unit plan to a daily lesson plan,

let’s look at the reasoning target in FIGURE 2.5. Mrs. Vega felt that 

reasoning was embedded in three of the four benchmarks. The 

key words she observed in these were “examine,” “analyze,” and 

“explore.” In all three benchmarks, there appeared to be cause-andeffect relationships, as students were asked to examine how organisms affected the composition of the Earth, to analyze processes that 

caused changes on the Earth, and to explore how fossils served as 

indicators of change. To successfully complete these benchmarks, 

students will need to understand cause and effect and be able to 

explore relationships. Mrs. Vega is going to use brainstorming activities, graphic organizers, class discussions, and some inquiry activities 

(hands-on experimentation, student-designed labs) to help students 

make connections between cause and effect. For example, she 

might begin with benchmark 6c by showing pictures of the rock formations in Monument Valley, Utah, and asking students to brainstorm 

how the monuments were formed. Through a class sharing/discussion 

session, the word “erosion” may be introduced to the class. Once 

this word appears, Mrs. Vega may then ask how erosion occurs (e.g., 

What are the agents of erosion?). Once such agents as wind, water, 

and frost have been identifi ed by the students, Mrs. Vega may ask 

students to draw a “before” picture for one of the Monument Valley 

photographs, identifying the causal agent for the change. Similarly, 

the class may examine “before” and “after” pictures of Mt. St. Helens. 

Here, Mrs. Vega may ask the cause of the change seen. Through 

such demonstrations and class discussions, Mrs. Vega is introducing 

cause and effect. Later, Mrs. Vega may ask students to manipulate 

paper or stacks of colored towels to simulate mountain building. 

Again, she will draw students’ attention to the cause (force applied) 

and the effect (mountain building). She may conclude this lesson 

on cause and effect by asking students to create a concept map 

around the phrase “forces that shape the Earth.”

ONE FINAL NOTE: Learning targets should be shared with students prior 

to the actual instruction or assessment of that learning target. Knowing 

the target is necessary for successful learning to occur. Think back on 

your own experiences as a student. Was there a time when you did 

not understand what you were supposed to learn? Was this a frustrating experience for you? Or, have you ever misjudged the teacher’s 

expectations? When did you fi nd out you had made this misjudgment? Was it after you received a grade on an assignment? Could 

you have done better on the assignment if you had simply understood 

what you were supposed to learn?

When we share the learning targets with students upfront, we are 

making it possible for them to hit the target. When we fail to share the 

learning targets, we are asking students to shoot their arrows at an 

invisible (or perhaps moving) target.

�����������

�����������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������

��

���������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������
15

FIGURE 2.6

Practice in Classifying Learning Targets

Directions: Match the standards or benchmarks on the right side to the 

correct learning target category.

LEARNING TARGET 

CATEGORY STANDARD OR BENCHMARK

a. Knowledge

b. Reasoning

c. Performance Skills

d. Products

e. Dispositions

1. Create a model of the cell and label all parts.

2. Persevere to overcome roadblocks.

3. Identify the parts of a microscope.

4. Make a hypothesis.

5. Analyze the effects on solubility by changing the temperature of 

the solution.

6. Demonstrate the operation of a Bunsen burner using correct 

safety procedures.

7. Work cooperatively in lab, sharing equipment equitably.

8. List characteristics of living things.

9. Write a lab report.

10. Share scientifi c fi ndings with the class in an oral report.

Answers: Answers: 1.d, 2.e, 3.a., 4.b, 5.b, 6.c, 7.e, 8.a, 9. d, 10.c 1.d, 2.e, 3.a., 4.b, 5.b, 6.c, 7.e, 8.a, 9. d, 10.c
16

CHAPTER THREE

Gathering Evidence 

in a Variety of Ways

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

In Chapter Two, we explored documents that help teachers determine 

what students should know and be able to do. Specifi cally, we looked 

at the National Science Education Standards and at some examples 

of state standards. We noted a trend for standards to start as general 

statements and become increasingly specifi c as they are broken into 

objectives or benchmarks. Then, we experimented with unpacking such 

statements into component 

learning targets: Knowledge, 

Reasoning, Performance Skills, 

Products, and Dispositions. In 

this chapter, we will emphasize aligning our assessments 

with these learning targets, in 

order to create valid assessments. Assessments are valid

when they actually provide information about student achievement of 

the intended learning target. An example of an invalid assessment of 

the ability to use a microscope correctly (a Performance Skills learning 

target) would be to give a pencil-and-paper test on the parts of the 

microscope. A more valid assessment would be to hand the student 

a slide and have him focus this under low and high power. Before we 

can begin creating these valid assessments, we need to look at the 

different methods of assessment available for teachers to use.

Methods of Assessment

FIGURE 3.1 graphically displays several different methods of assessment 

that we will reference in this chapter. As the table shows, one way 

that methods of assessment can be categorized involves the use of 

two main headings: Selected Response Selected Response andConstructed Response. 

Selected response assessments provide students with a list of possible 

answers. The students then select an appropriate answer from this list. 

Examples of Selected Response assessments include multiple choice 

questions, true/false questions, matching questions, and sometimes fi ll-in-the-blank questions (if students are given a word bank of 

answers from which to choose their response). Constructed Response 

assessments, unlike selected response, require students to create their 

own answers. FIGURE 3.1 shows that constructed responses can be further sub-divided into Products Products andPerformances. Short-answer questions and essay questions would fall under the Constructed ResponseProduct subcategory. Here, students are asked to construct their own 

responses to the question and to create a written record (a product). 

Other products listed here include science logs or journals, research 

papers, student-constructed graphs, portfolios, notebooks, and such 

graphical organizers as fl ow charts or concept maps. 

�������

�����������

���������

�������
17

FIGURE 3.1

Assessment Methods and Approaches 

SELECTED RESPONSES CONSTRUCTED RESPONSES

Multiple Choice

True/False

Matching

Fill-in-the-Blank

Products Performances

Essays

Logs

Journals

Graphing

Portfolios

Paragraphs (short answers)

Notebooks

Flow Charts

Concept Maps

Research Papers

Laboratory Practical Exam

Oral Presentations

Demonstrations

Dramatizations

Role Playing

Debates

Panel Discussions

Musical Recitals

Movements

 Questioning 

 Formal and Informal Observations 

 Teacher/Student Dialogues 

A laboratory practical exam, in which students are required to demonstrate safety procedures, might be an example of a Constructed 

Response-Performance assessment. Here, students might demonstrate appropriate pippetting skills, the proper way to dilute acids, or 

the safe way to heat a test tube. During these tasks, students would 

hardly be selecting their responses from a list; rather, they would be 

actively involved in demonstrating the acquired skills. Other performances that might occur in science classes include:

● Oral presentations of scientifi c fi ndings (e.g., students present 

results of experiments or talk to judges at the science fair 

about their projects or students utilize whiteboards and 

multimedia displays to explain fi ndings.)

● Dramatization of an important “moment in science”

(e.g., the discovery of penicillin, invention of the microscope.)

● Taking on a role to solve a problem (e.g., being the “town 

member” or the “mosquito control board member” in a 

problem related to mosquito infestation.)

● Debates in which students support different sides of a 

question (e.g., stem cell research.)

● Panel discussions (i.e., each student on the panel is an expert 

in a particular area. The class attempts to solve a problem by 

calling on the panel for answers.)

● Musical recitals (e.g., students create raps or songs to teach 

scientifi c concepts.)
18

● Movements (e.g., students create an “electron dance” to 

show quantum levels or students become codons and dance 

protein synthesis.)

There are three other important methods of assessment depicted on 

the chart in FIGURE 3.1. These are Questioning, Formal and Informal 

Observations, and Teacher/Student Dialogues. 

QUESTIONING is perhaps the most common type of classroom assessment. Brown and Edmondson (1984) reported that as many as 100 

questions per class hour may be asked in elementary or secondary 

classrooms. For example, as teachers explain concepts, they often 

ask comprehension questions. A teacher explaining photosynthesis 

might ask at the end of the 

lesson, “What name is given 

to the process plants used 

to make food?” Or, he may 

ask, “What are the products 

of photosynthesis?”

Such comprehension questions, asking for a simple 

recall of facts comprise 

70–80% of all questions 

asked in classrooms (Borich, 

2000). If teachers only use 

questions to check comprehension, they are under-utilizing this valuable assessment method. 

Questions, like other assessment methods, can stimulate student 

thinking and thereby enhance learning. Such questions are deemed 

effective effective questions by Borich (2000, p. 238), who states that any ques- questions by Borich (2000, p. 238), who states that any question that “evokes a response that actively engages a student in the 

learning process” is an effective question.

To stimulate student thinking, questions must go beyond the 

comprehension level. Various authors categorize such higher-order 

thinking questions under different labels. For example, Bloom (1956) 

used the labels Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation. 

In revisiting Bloom’s taxonomy, Anderson,et al., (2001) use Apply, 

Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. FIGURE 3.2 uses the newer categoriza-

��������

���������������������������

��������������������������������

�����������������������������

����������������������������

����������������������������

���������������������������

������������

�����������

�������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������

������������������������������������

���������������������������������

������������������������������������������������
19

tion scheme and provides sample science questions at each level. 

Note how the higher levels not only check to see if students can 

recall information, but also ask them to process information, clarify 

or expand on concepts, make judgments, formulate generalizations, 

and/or solve problems. Such questions take students forward in their 

thinking about science concepts (and therefore enhance learning), 

while still providing the teacher with a window into students’ mental 

processes (serving an assessment function). 

FIGURE 3.2

Higher-Order Thinking Questions

for Eighth-Grade General Science

CATEGORY/

COGNITIVE LEVEL SAMPLE SCIENCE QUESTIONS

REMEMBER 1. Which planet is closest to the sun?

2. Which planet is the largest one?

UNDERSTAND 1 Explain the Big Bang theory.

2. Explain the difference between weight and mass.

APPLY

1. The table on page 42 shows the distance from Earth to nine different 

stars. We know that light travels at a speed of 300,000 km per second. 

Would it take hours, days, or years for light from the Sun to reach Earth? 

From Alpha Centauri?

2. Use your defi nition of gravity and of orbital velocity to answer this 

question: We are launching two satellites that will orbit Earth. One will 

orbit at a much faster rate than the other. Which one (the slower or the 

faster satellite) will we be able to place further from the surface of Earth?

ANALYZE

1. Differentiate between meteors, comets, and asteroids, using at least 

three criteria.

2. In the excerpt we read, why does the astronaut say, “Then, on the Space 

Shuttle, a goat could be our best friend?”

EVALUATE

1. Of all the by-products of space exploration listed on page 93, which do 

you think is the most important? Why?

2. Do you agree or disagree with NASA’s decision to ground the Space 

Shuttle? Defend your answer.

CREATE

1. In the story we read, astronauts decided to use a goat to replace the 

waste treatment plant on the Space Shuttle. What other animals could 

be used to replace heavy or bulky equipment on the Shuttle?

2. Design living quarters for one member of the crew on the Space Station.

FIGURE 3.2 emphasizes the need for teachers to create questions 

ahead of time—before instruction. Higher-order questions can be diffi cult to create, so teachers need time to plan these questions before 

they can implement the use of such higher-order questions in classes.

�����������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������
20

In addition to questioning techniques, teachers also use OBSERVATIONS

as assessment methods. Sometimes these observations are formal 

ones; at other times they are informal. In formal observations, the observations, the 

student is usually notifi ed ahead of time and given an opportunity 

to prepare for the observation. In addition, a set of criteria may be 

shared with the student to help him in this preparation. One example 

of the use of a formal observation might be during an oral presentation. The students would have time to prepare and perhaps be 

given a list of grading criteria as “Content,” “Use of Visual Aids,” 

“Organization,” and “Clarity.” The teacher then observes the student’s performance and rates him on these criteria.

FIGURE 3.3 contains a sample data collection matrix for participation 

in seventh-grade class discussions of stem cell research. Following 

formal observations of students during such discussions, the teacher 

may record anecdotal notes on student performance. The teacher’s 

fi ndings can then be shared with the individual students to help them 

improve their participation in such classroom discussions. From the 

headings, it is obvious that the teacher is trying to emphasize the use 

of critical thinking in class discussions. She may be trying to enhance 

the cognitive challenge of such discussions by asking students to 

extend their knowledge beyond a recitation of facts. She wants them 

to interject inferences, justify their statements by referencing sources, 

apply knowledge, etc.

FIGURE 3.3

Participation in Class Discussions

on Stem Cell Research

Data Collection

Matrix—7th Grade

STUDENT’S 

NAME

CONTRIBUTED 

TO 

DISCUSSION

LISTENED 

TO OTHERS

ARTICULATED 

TEXT 

CONCEPTS IN 

OWN WORDS

SUBSTANTIATED 

IDEAS/

OPINIONS WITH 

REASONING

MADE 

INFERENCES

NOTES OR 

OBSERVATIONS 

Adapted from Tools for Providing Feedback in Reading: A Reading Assessment 

Handbook for All Teachers in Grades 3–12, 2004, SERVE.

Other Sample Headings for Discussion Matrix:

● Differentiates important from extraneous information

● Relates text information to real life 

● Applies textual facts to a new situation

● Makes accurate analogies
21

Informal Informal observations occur more frequently than formal ones. observations occur more frequently than formal ones.

Teachers are constantly watching their students to monitor 

understanding. A teacher who notes the frown on Martha’s face 

during a lecture may stop and re-explain a concept. Circulating 

during seatwork, a teacher may fi nd that Doug is not writing units 

after his numbers. She pauses to help him. Both of these teachers 

are using informal observations as assessment methods. They are 

using observations of students to help them ascertain what students 

know and are able to do as well as using observations to monitor the 

effectiveness of their own instruction.

In FIGURE 3.3, we saw how a formal observation instrument could be 

used to collect assessment data on student performance related to 

class discussions. Such class discussions would also fall under the category of Teacher/Student Dialogues. Let’s look at another example 

of student/teacher interchanges in the following Classroom Scenario.

Classroom Scenario

In Ms. McCoy’s tenth-grade chemistry class, students 

are classifying elements as solids, liquids, or gases at 

room temperature. It is Mary’s turn, and Mary has been 

assigned the element mercury, which is a liquid at room 

temperature.

Ms. McCoy: OK, Mary, you have mercury. Is mercury a 

solid, liquid, or gas at room temperature?

Mary: Mercury is a solid.

(Teacher pauses and wonders if Mary has observed a 

broken mercury thermometer. When the thermometer 

breaks, the mercury liquid rolls up into small spheres that 

appear solid.)

Ms. McCoy: Please explain the reasoning for your answer, 

Mary.

Mary (answering with some exasperation): Mercury. Planet 

closest to the sun. Solid!

In this scenario, we see an example of teacher/student dialogue 

used as an assessment tool. Ms. McCoy wants to understand Mary’s 

answer. She is trying to diagnose the reason Mary gave an “incorrect” answer. Ms. McCoy could simply have said, “Incorrect” and 

then given the right answer, “Mercury is a liquid at room temperature.” However, she paused and asked for Mary’s rationale. In doing 

so, she uncovered an important misconception that Mary held. Mary 

was equating Mercury the planet with mercury the element. Without 

this conversational exchange, Ms. McCoy would not know the reason for Mary’s answer. However, now that she understands Mary’s 

answer, she can help correct Mary’s misconception. The use of 

teacher/student dialogues, then—probing for student understanding—can be a powerful assessment method. Other venues in which 

teacher/student dialogues occur include seminars, interviews, and 

individual conversations.
22

Aligning Assessment Methods

with Learning Targets

In this chapter, we have explored several different assessment 

methods, including selected and constructed responses, questioning, observations, and teacher/student dialogues. Such assessments 

are only valid when they actually measure what they were intended 

to measure. To foster validity, it is important to tie assessments to particular learning targets. Let’s select two sample benchmarks and then 

see if we design valid assessments for these targets. The source for 

both benchmarks is the South Carolina Science Curriculum Standards 

(www.myscschools.com/offi ces/cso/standards/science). To begin, we’ll have 

to do some unpacking:

SAMPLE BENCHMARK 1: Name major body parts and identify the 

 uses of body parts.

KEY VERBS: Name, identify

EMBEDDED LEARNING TARGET: Knowledge

This sample benchmark has knowledge as its goal. Students must 

learn the names of the body parts and be able to recall their uses. For 

example, since this is a kindergarten-level benchmark, the students 

might be expected to learn that noses are for smelling, ears for hearing, mouths for eating, etc. What would be a good way to assess this 

benchmark? We know we have several options: selected response 

questions, constructed responses (either products or performances), 

teacher questioning, and teacher observation. FIGURE 3.4 records 

some advantages and disadvantages of each assessment method.

FIGURE 3.4

Body Parts Assessment

ASSESSMENT 

METHOD

HOW THIS

MIGHT LOOK ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

SELECTED RESPONSE Multiple-choice questions 

could refer students to a 

diagram of body parts, 

while matching questions 

could ask students to 

match body parts to uses.

Selected response 

questions can 

effi ciently 

measure 

knowledge 

targets.

Due to limited 

reading/writing 

skills of kindergarten 

students, this is not a 

good match in this 

case. Also, as with all 

selected response 

questions, there is 

the possibility of false 

positive results due to 

chance.

CONSTRUCTED 

RESPONSE—

PRODUCT

Students could be asked 

to draw and correctly 

label a diagram to assess 

knowledge of names of 

body parts. They could 

write uses beside each 

body part name.

An effi cient 

method 

since teacher 

interactions with 

individuals is not 

required.

Again, due to limited 

reading/writing 

skills of kindergarten 

students, this is not a 

good match in this 

case.
23

ASSESSMENT 

METHOD

HOW THIS

MIGHT LOOK ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

CONSTRUCTED 

RESPONSE—

PERFORMANCE

Students could don an 

apron on which body 

parts could be attached 

with Velcro (as stomach, 

lungs, heart, etc.). Students 

could correctly place 

organs on the apron, tell 

their names, and tell their 

uses.

Task is even 

more cognitively 

challenging than 

benchmark, as 

students must also 

correctly place 

the organ.

Students would need 

time to practice with 

the apron before 

the assessment. 

Time-consuming 

assessment, as each 

student will have 

to perform for the 

teacher.

TEACHER 

QUESTIONING 

COMBINED WITH

TEACHER/STUDENT 

DIALOGUE

Teacher could point to 

particular body parts on a 

diagram and ask students 

to name them. A followup question could ask 

students to tell the use of 

this part.

Does not require 

reading or writing 

or even drawing. 

Should be within 

developmental 

level of students.

Time consuming. 

Again, the teacher 

would need to 

interact with every 

student to assess 

knowledge.

TEACHER 

OBSERVATION

This would be similar to the 

Questioning assessment. 

The student would point 

to a diagram, name the 

parts, and give the use 

of each. However, the 

teacher would simply 

watch the student, 

without using prompting 

questions.

Well within the 

development 

level of the 

students.

Prompting questions 

are not present, so 

the student may 

forget to give the 

name or give the use 

of the body part. Time 

consuming, requiring 

interaction between 

the teacher and each 

student.

As the chart shows, almost any assessment method would work for 

this benchmark. However, teachers must also take into consideration 

the developmental level of their students. Students with limited reading or writing ability may not handle certain types of assessments 

as well as others, particularly selected response or constructed 

response-product types of assessment. (Of course, there is no rule 

that says selected response questions must be written. The teacher 

could adapt this method and give oral choices from which the students may pick their answer. As long as the answer was given orally, 

this should still be well within the developmental level of kindergarteners.) Another way this could be tested is to have the teacher say the 

name of the body part and then have students circle the diagram 

showing this part. Since all the students could do this at their desks 

at the same time, this would not be as time consuming as performances, questioning, or observation methods. There is still the problem of giving the uses, however.

According to the chart in FIGURE 3.4, the best assessment methods 

for this benchmark were either Constructed Response-Performance 

or Teacher Questioning combined with Teacher/Student 

Dialogue. Both are time consuming, but both actually measure 

the knowledge embedded in the benchmark. The Constructed 

Response-Performance goes even further by stretching this minimum 

competency.

Let’s look at another benchmark, fi rst unpacking it and then looking 

at assessment choices:
24

SAMPLE BENCHMARK 2: Create and classify mixtures made of two or 

 more substances (solid-solid, solid-liquid, and liquid-liquid).

KEY VERBS: create, classify

EMBEDDED TARGETS: Knowledge, Reasoning, Performance Skill

Within this fi fth-grade benchmark, we fi nd at least three learning targets embedded. Students must have some basic knowledge, as they 

must know the defi nitions of mixture, solid, and liquid. They will have 

to use reasoning to classify the types of mixtures. Finally, they must 

use performance skills to actually create a sample mixture of each 

type. So, what type of assessment should we use? Choose the best 

(most valid) one from the list below:

1) Selected Response—Matching Question similar to this one.

 A. Solid-Solid 1. Ice water

 B. Solid-Liquid 2. Brass

 C. Liquid-Liquid 3. Oil and vinegar salad dressing

 4. Amalgam fi lling for a tooth

2) Constructed Response—Product Short-Answer Question 

similar to this one.

 Give one example of each type of mixture:

 Solid-Solid

Solid-Liquid

Liquid-Liquid

3) Constructed Response—Performance Task with Teacher 

Observation similar to this one.

 Using the materials in the lab, create three different mixtures. 

One must be Solid-Solid, one must be Solid-Liquid, and one 

must be Liquid-Liquid. Label your mixtures appropriately. Be 

ready to explain why these are mixtures, not compounds.

Hopefully, you would choose # 3 above as the most valid assessment. 

The other two do not assess the Performance Skill learning target, 

even though it was embedded in the benchmark.

�����������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

In this chapter, we have concentrated on the various methods of 

assessments teachers may use to ascertain what students know and 

are able to do. We have particularly emphasized creating valid 

assessments—assessments that are aligned to the learning targets. 

Because the standards and benchmarks for a course may contain 

many different learning targets, a variety of assessments are needed. 

If teachers use only paper-and-pencil tests with selected response 

items, a rich source of data about student performance is missing. 

In the next chapter, we will continue looking at a variety of assessments. The emphasis in Chapter Four shifts from defi ning assessment 

methods to providing meaningful feedback to students.
25

CHAPTER FOUR

Gathering Evidence

in a Variety of Ways

MEANINGFUL FEEDBACK

In Chapter Three, we learned that assessment methods can be categorised as selected response or constructed response. Constructed 

responses may be further divided into products and performances. 

Chapter Three also introduced Questioning, Observations, and 

Teacher/Student Dialogues as methods of assessment.

In Chapter One, we stated that assessment has two broad goals: 1) to 

provide feedback to students 

about their own learning and 

2) to monitor the effectiveness 

of instruction. We will tackle 

monitoring the effectiveness 

of instruction in Chapter Five. 

In this chapter, we will concentrate on providing feedback 

to students about their academic 

performance, using the above 

methods of assessment. We will primarily 

concentrate on assessments other than selected response types. The 

rationale for this arises from our work with teachers over the last fi ve 

years. It appears that teachers already feel very comfortable utilizing 

selected response items. Teachers often have less experience, however, with other methods of assessment.

Purposes of Assessment 

Refl ect on your own experiences as a student. Was there a time when 

you received a low grade on an assignment because you weren’t 

ready for an assessment? Perhaps you had not had suffi cient time to 

practice the skill that was being assessed. Or, perhaps you THOUGHT 

you understood a concept, only to fi nd on the test that you were 

mistaken. Assessment experiences like these happen to all of us. 

However, as good assessors, we try to limit the number of bad assessment experiences our own students must endure. To do this, we must 

fi rst examine the three purposes of assessment: diagnostic, formative, 

and summative.

Teachers use DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENTS to ascertain the current level 

of understanding (or misunderstanding) that students possess about 

a concept prior to instruction on this concept. The chemistry teacher 

who gives a math test on exponents before beginning a unit on 

Avogadro’s number (6.02 x 1023) is using diagnostic assessment. This 

chemistry teacher wants to know if students can manipulate (add, 

subtract, multiply, and divide) exponents before beginning a unit that 

will require them to do so. Diagnostic assessments reveal “where the 

students are now” so that teachers can plan appropriate pathways 

that will lead the students to deeper levels of understanding. Such 

assessments are also useful in uncovering student misconceptions 

about science topics. Therefore, diagnostic assessments are power-

�������

�����������

���������

�������
26

ful assessment tools that help teachers design instruction that meets

students’ needs.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS are used to provide feedback to students as 

they progress toward a learning goal. Through formative assessments, 

students learn about their strengths and weaknesses before “it counts,” 

i.e., before a grade is taken or recorded. Feedback during practice 

is the heart of formative assessment. For example, a sixth-grade student may submit the fi rst draft of a graph for the teacher’s review. The 

teacher makes comments on it or discusses the positive and negative 

features of the graph with the student. The student is then given an 

opportunity to re-draw or correct the graph before a grade is taken. 

Similarly, the teacher may provide a list of criteria to students. These 

criteria will be used to score a performance task (perhaps an oral presentation on “Animal Adaptations to a Particular Environment”). The 

students can practice the task, score themselves, and then ask peers 

to score them before performing the task for a grade. 

In order for students to benefi t from formative feedback, Black & 

Wiliam (1998, p.143) list the following three key features of effective 

feedback. “When anyone is trying to learn, feedback about the 

effort has three elements: recognition of the desired goal desired goal, evidence , evidence 

about present position, and some understanding of a way to close 

the gap the gap between the two.” Therefore, it is important for the teacher between the two.” Therefore, it is important for the teacher 

to convey his/her expectations to the students, provide evidence of 

their present level of performance, and then suggest strategies to 

improve that performance.

SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS are usually culminating ones. They occur after 

students have had time to practice a new skill, ask questions, interact 

with materials, etc. Summative assessments are generally used to rate 

the profi ciency of students relative to a particular skill or skill set (as 

“profi cient and ready to move on” to “beginning to understand, but 

needs further instruction”) or they may be used to rank order students 

(as from “best” to “worst” or from “got it” to “hasn’t a clue!”).

In this chapter, we will focus on formative assessments. We will 

look at ways to provide meaningful feedback to science students 

while they are learning. In this formative process, we aid students 

in becoming competent self-assessors (since grading criteria are 

shared with them ahead of time), and we help them improve their 

performances (because they receive meaningful and timely feedback on those performances). 

Types of Formative Feedback

Formative feedback is that feedback provided to students while 

they are learning. The purposes of such feedback include: 1) conveying the desired learning goal or goals to students, 2) alerting 

students to misconceptions, 3) providing them with information on 

strengths and weaknesses of their performances, and 4) providing 

strategies students can use to address weaknesses. Figure 4.1 displays the assessment methods introduced in Chapter Three and then 

suggests some feedback mechanisms appropriate for each. For the 

remainder of this chapter, we will explore examples of these feedback mechanisms.
27

FIGURE 4.1

Feedback Mechanisms Matched to

Assessment Methods

ASSESSMENT METHOD FEEDBACK MECHANISM

SELECTED RESPONSE Written feedback: marking incorrect answers with circle 

or X; checkmarks for correct answers; Verbal feedback 

(follow-up conferences/discussions with students to review 

performance on selected response items)

CONSTRUCTED RESPONSE—

PRODUCTS

Verbal feedback (discussions/conferences with students); 

Written feedback via comments or scoring rubrics

CONSTRUCTED RESPONSE—

PERFORMANCES

Verbal feedback (discussions/conferences with students); 

Written feedback via comments or scoring rubrics

QUESTIONING Verbal feedback (indicating correctness of answer; followup questions to stimulate thinking)

OBSERVATIONS—INFORMAL Verbal feedback (via discussions/conferences with 

students; comments pinpointing weaknesses and strengths; 

suggestions for improving work)

OBSERVATIONS—FORMAL Verbal feedback (via discussions/conferences with 

students); written feedback via comments, markings on 

observation instruments, or scoring rubrics

TEACHER/STUDENT 

DIALOGUES

Verbal feedback via comments highlighting strengths and 

weaknesses; suggestions for improving work

Verbal Feedback

Perhaps the most common method by which students receive feedback is via verbal comments from the teacher. This type of feedback 

is often used with Questioning, Teacher/Student Dialogues, and 

Informal Observations (although it is possible to use it with all kinds of 

assessments). A simple “Yes” or “That’s correct” statement made by 

the teacher after a student answers a question may signal to the student that he is on the right track. Teacher comments after an observation, as “Trung, you need to hold the streaking wand lightly in your 

hand and use less pressure when streaking the agar plate. This will 

prevent cuts in the agar,” can also provide students with feedback on 

performances as well as guidance for addressing weaknesses. To see 

how verbal feedback might be used in Teacher/Student Dialogues, 

let’s return to the sample dialogue from Chapter Three. This time, we’ll 

continue the conversation to see how Ms. McCoy provided verbal 

feedback to Mary.

Classroom Scenario

In Ms. McCoy’s tenth-grade chemistry class, students 

are classifying elements as solids, liquids, or gases at 

room temperature. It is Mary’s turn, and Mary has been 

assigned the element mercury, which is a liquid at room 

temperature.

Ms. McCoy: OK, Mary, you have mercury. Is mercury a 

solid, liquid, or gas at room temperature?
28

Mary: Mercury is a solid.

(Teacher pauses and wonders if Mary has observed a 

broken mercury thermometer. When the thermometer 

breaks, the mercury liquid rolls up into small spheres that 

appear solid.)

Ms. McCoy: Please explain the reasoning for your answer, 

Mary.

Mary (answering with some exasperation): Mercury. Planet 

closest to the sun. Solid!

Verbal Feedback

Ms. McCoy: Thanks, Mary. Now I understand your 

answer. You’re right—Mercury is the planet closest to the 

sun. However, the planet Mercury is not made up of the 

element “mercury.” I know this is confusing, since both 

have the same name. So, let me give you and the class a 

little history lesson. Both the planet and the element are 

named after one of the Greek gods. This mythological god 

(whose name was Mercury) served as the messenger for 

the other gods. They would send him down to Earth to talk 

with mortals, or send him with messages to other gods. 

The reason Mercury was chosen to be the messenger was 

because he possessed sandals with attached wings. This 

made Mercury very fast. So, when the gods wanted to send 

a message, they naturally chose the fastest god as their 

messenger. When Mercury, the planet, was discovered 

by astronomers, they were struck by how fast the planet 

moved around the sun. Therefore, they chose to name 

this planet after the messenger of the gods. Mercury, the 

element, also got its name from being fast. In fact, the old 

name for this element was “quick-silver.” Obviously, this 

element could move very fast at room temperature. Do 

you now understand that, even though both are named for 

the same mythological god, the planet Mercury and the 

element mercury are two different things?

Mary: Yes. I just thought that the planet had to be made up 

of the element, since both had the same name. Now, I see 

that they are just named after the same person, but they 

are two different things.

Ms. McCoy: Good, Mary. Are you ready to answer the 

question, then, about mercury, the element? Would it be a 

solid, liquid, or gas at room temperature?

Mary: You know, I’m still stumped. I just don’t know which 

answer to choose.

Ms. McCoy: Then, let’s review what we know about the 

Periodic Table of the Elements. How does the table in our 

book show us the different states of matter?

Mary: Oh, I remember! Solids are printed in black ink, 

liquids are in blue ink, and gases are in red ink.
29

Ms. McCoy: Absolutely correct, Mary. So, at room temperature, what is the state of matter of the element mercury?

Mary: Liquid!

Ms. McCoy: That’s right, Mary. Mercury is a liquid at room 

temperature. We know this because our chart shows it in 

blue ink. If you look closely, you’ll see that it is the only 

metal that is a liquid at room temperature.

In this interchange, Ms. McCoy provides feedback about Mary’s 

answers. Initially, Mary gives the wrong answer, due to a misconception. Mary is confusing Mercury the planet with mercury the element. 

By expanding the Teacher/Student dialogue, Ms. McCoy gives Mary 

(and the class) some background knowledge about the element. 

She also carefully helps Mary get back on track with some skillful 

reminders and questions (e.g., How does the table in our book show 

us the different states of matter?). Once Mary is helped to the correct answer, Ms. McCoy provides positive feedback (e.g., “Absolutely 

correct, That’s right”) and then restates the right answer for Mary and 

the class (e.g., “Mercury is a liquid at room temperature”). Finally, Ms. 

McCoy provides some additional information that may help the class 

particularly remember the element mercury (e.g., “it is the only metal 

that is a liquid at room temperature”).

In this classroom scenario, Ms. McCoy fulfi lls all of the Black and 

Wiliam (1998) requirements for feedback. She introduces the desired 

goal (students should be able to interpret the Periodic Table to ascertain which elements are liquids, solids, or gases at room temperature), 

and she provides information about Mary’s present position present position relative to relative to

this goal through her verbal feedback. In the above interchange with 

Mary, we also see how Ms. McCoy reminds Mary of the strategy (way 

to close the gap) to use in formulating her answer (using the legend 

on the Periodic Table). Finally, Ms. McCoy also helps uncover a student misconception (the planet Mercury is made of mercury).

Written Feedback

Often, teachers use written feedback mechanisms when selected 

response and constructed response (product or performance) 

assessments are implemented with students. On selected response 

items, this written feedback is most likely to take the form of marking. 

As the chart in FIGURE 4.1 indicates, these markings may take the form 

of circles, X marks, or checkmarks. These symbols provide a shorthand method of indicating correct or incorrect answers. Such marks 

do little, however, to help students close the gap.

Written feedback on products may also utilize marking symbols, but 

words or phrases are usually added to the paper to indicate student strengths or weaknesses or to provide guidance to students for 

improving performance. FIGURE 4.2 displays an example of written 

feedback on an eighth-grade product assessment. In this case, the 

product is a short-answer, recall question given to students before an 

exam. The teacher is preparing the students for several knowledgelevel questions that will be asked on a multiple-choice, large-scale 

test. By asking the students to provide a complete explanation of 

blood circulation, she can pinpoint weaknesses in their understanding. In this manner, students can correct misconceptions or identify 

areas for further study before the exam.
���������������������

���������������������

���������������������

���������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������

�������������� ���������������������������������

�����������������������������������

������������������������������������

�������������������������������������

�������������������������������������

��������������������������������������

����������������������������������

���������������������������������

�������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

�������������������������������������

����������������������������

���������

�������������

������������

�����

���������

����������

��������

������

������������

�����������

�������������

������������� �������������� ������� ����������

�������������������������������������������

��������������

���������������

�������������������������������������� ����������

�������������

�������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������

������������������������������������

������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������

��������������������������

FIGURE 4.2
31

In the written feedback, the teacher indicates the strengths and 

weaknesses found within the student’s answer. She appears to use 

“Correct” to provide positive feedback and questions to indicate 

weaknesses. She ends her comments with suggestions about how 

Keisha can improve her performance on this subject (blood circulation) and even challenges Keisha to perform further research/study 

(“When will this saying not be true?”). be true?”). 

In this example of written feedback, then, the teacher identifi es the 

desired goal (students will be able to trace the course of a red blood 

cell throughout the circulatory system), provides information on student strengths and weaknesses, and suggests strategies for addressing weaknesses. This particular excerpt does not indicate any misconceptions found in Keisha’s thinking. It appears that Keisha has a basic 

understanding of the circulatory system but needs to work on the 

details. Knowing the names of particular blood vessels (as the vena 

cavae), the parts of the heart (right and left atria, right and left ventricles), and the functions of each component part of the circulatory 

system will prepare Keisha for a multitude of highly specifi c, knowledge-level, multiple-choice questions on this subject. In this manner, 

the short-answer question is formative in nature, preparing Keisha for 

a summative assessment that will come later. The feedback is formative as it occurs while Keisha is still learning and because it fulfi lls three 

of the four purposes of such feedback.

A Subset of Written Feedback: Scoring Rubrics

Scoring rubrics are a special subset of written feedback. Rubrics 

generally provide a list of criteria supported by descriptions of performance levels relative to these criteria. FIGURE 4.3 provides an excerpt 

from such a scoring rubric, showing one criterion with its accompanying performance descriptions. This rubric might be used in a high 

school biology class. In this class, the teacher uses a machine to simulate the heart sounds that would be heard through a stethoscope 

during a blood pressure reading. Students must identify when to take 

readings by listening to the heart sounds. 

FIGURE 4.3

Excerpt from Rubric Used to Assess Student Skill

in Taking Blood Pressure

CRITERIA EXCELLENT ADEQUATE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

ACCURACY

Student readings for 

systolic and diastolic 

pressure are within 

3 mmHg (+ or -) of 

machine setting

Student readings for 

systolic and diastolic 

pressure are within 

7 mmHg (+ or -) of 

machine setting

Student readings for systolic 

and diastolic pressure 

are greater than 7 mmHg 

(+ or -) compared to the 

machine setting

This rubric provides feedback to students by stating the desired goal 

(an acceptable performance is to be within 7 mmHg of the machine 

reading) and by providing information about student performances 

(students can score at the “excellent,” “adequate,” or “needs improvement” level). This particular excerpt from the rubric does not provide 

information on strategies students can use to close the gap between 

“excellent” and “needs improvement” performances, however.
32

There are distinct advantages to using rubrics for formative feedback. When rubrics are distributed to students while they are learning, the rubrics can be very instructional in nature. Because such 

rubrics list the criteria by which students will be judged and then 

provide descriptions of performances at different levels, students can 

use them to hone their own performances. Therefore, rubrics inform 

students of the desired goals and provide mechanisms by which 

students can self-assess (gain information on their present position). 

Rubrics help students plan their performances, as they provide clues 

as to what a quality performance will include. These clues can often 

be used to brainstorm strategies for improving performance.

By using a rubric, the teacher provides the students with her expectations. She defi nes and describes a high-quality performance and 

lists the criteria by which the students will be judged. She distributes 

the rubric before students begin work. Then, she asks the students to 

perform peer and self-assessments of the work, using the rubric as a 

guide. Finally, she provides feedback on the student work by scoring this with the rubric. All of these activities (peer, self, and teacher 

assessment) can be formative—they can take place during the learning process. Therefore, the rubric serves as a feedback tool during this 

formative process. However, once students have completed the peer, 

self, and teacher formative assessments, the same rubric can then 

be used to score a summative assessment. In this manner, the same 

rubric may be used both formatively and summatively. In this chapter, 

we will emphasize the formative use of rubrics, however. We are drawing a distinction between “scoring” an assignment and “grading” an 

assignment. For the purposes of this text, “scoring” will mean giving formative feedback for improvement during instruction, whereas “grading” connotes a summative function that occurs after instruction. 

Whether used for formative purposes or summative ones, rubrics may 

be holistic or analytical analytical in nature. It is usually very easy to distinguish in nature. It is usually very easy to distinguish 

these two types. Students will receive only one score when a holistic 

rubric is used, but will receive multiple scores within several different 

dimensions when an analytical rubric is used. See FIGURE 4.4 for sample holistic and analytical rubrics.
33

FIGURE 4.4

Types of Rubrics

Holistic Rubric for Seventh-Grade Writing in Science

SCORE POINTS AND LEVEL DESCRIPTION

6:

HIGHEST LEVEL

Main ideas and supporting details are entirely accurate, specifi c, 

clear, and suffi cient; Higher-order thinking highly developed; 

Strong organizational structures throughout; Strong use of language 

throughout; Diagrams or sketches are accurate, clear, and focused 

on the topic

4:

SOMEWHAT DEVELOPED 

RESPONSES

Main ideas and supporting details are mostly accurate and 

mostly specifi c; Higher-order thinking developed; Satisfactory 

organizational structures; Language used in a satisfactory manner; 

Diagrams or sketches are on the topic

2:

UNDEVELOPED 

RESPONSE

Main idea with no support and/or contains major errors in using the 

main science concepts important to the task; Very little evidence 

of higher-order thinking; Unorganized; Some language used 

incorrectly; Diagrams or sketches are off topic or absent

0:

LOWEST LEVEL No response

Analytical Rubric for Seventh-Grade Writing

in Science

CRITERIA LEVEL 1—LOW LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4—HIGH

MAIN IDEAS Not present

Present but 

not clear; May 

include major 

errors

Clear and 

accurate; May 

include minor 

errors

Clear, accurate, 

and suffi cient in 

number to cover 

the topic

SUPPORTING 

DETAILS Not accurate

Accurate but 

very sparse; May 

include major 

errors

Accurate and 

suffi cient in 

number to 

support the 

main ideas; May 

include minor 

errors

Accurate, suffi cient 

in number, and 

especially well 

chosen to support 

the main idea

HIGHER-ORDER 

THINKING Not evident Somewhat 

evident Evident Strongly evident

ORGANIZATION Very unorganized Somewhat 

organized Organized Strongly organized throughout

USE OF 

LANGUAGE

Immature use of 

vocabulary

Vocabulary 

includes some 

topic-specifi c 

words

Vocabulary 

includes a good 

selection of 

topic-specifi c 

words

Vocabulary 

chosen does an 

excellent job of 

addressing both 

the topic and the 

audience

SKETCHES No sketches

Sketches present 

but do not 

support the 

writing well

Sketches 

accurate and 

do support the 

writing

Sketches accurate 

and especially 

clear in supporting 

the writing

Adapted from: Hibbard, K. M. ( 2000). Performance-based learning and assessment in 

middle school science. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Pages 70–71, 74. 
34

From examining these two rubrics, you can see that the student 

would receive only one score in the fi rst, holistic rubric. She would 

get either 6 or 4 or 2 or 0. However, in the second, analytical rubric, 

the student would get a score in six different dimensions (Main Idea, 

Supporting Details, Higher-Order Thinking, Organization, Use of 

Language, and Sketches). 

Let us suppose that a seventh-grade student, Marty, submitted a 

sample of scientifi c writing. In this piece, Marty covered the main 

idea very well, but was weak in supporting details. He showed exceptional higher-order thinking, as he related the science concept to 

his own life and extrapolated possible future uses of this concept. 

However, his organization tended to skip from subject to subject and 

back again, negatively impacting his clarity. His word choices were 

high level. Marty forgot to include a sketch. How would Marty do on 

each of the rubrics?

Perhaps the teacher using the holistic rubric gave Marty an overall 4 

due to the poor organization and lack of sketch. The teacher using 

the analytical rubric recorded the following for Marty:

Main Idea 4

Supporting Details 2

Higher-Order Thinking 4

Organization 3

Use of Language 4

Sketches 1 

Which type of rubric would provide the most meaningful formative 

feedback to Marty, to help him improve his scientifi c writing performance? Certainly it would be the analytical one, which clearly shows 

Marty’s strengths and weaknesses. This analytical rubric could greatly 

aid Marty in self-assessing his own work by informing him of targets, 

indicating his present position relative to the targets, and suggesting ways to improve his performance (via performance indicators on 

the rubric, as comparing the descriptions of performance levels for 

Supporting Details). By reading the rubric, Marty could fi nd that he 

needs to provide more supporting details (his were sparse) and that 

these details must support his main idea. The rubric also notifi es Marty 

of the necessity of enclosing a sketch with his work. Marty can use 

this information to improve his performance before a grade is taken 

on his writing in science. Since the analytical rubric provides greater 

details on student performance (giving a score in several different 

dimensions to help students pinpoint strengths and weaknesses), we 

recommend the use of analytical analytical rubrics with formative assessments. rubrics with formative assessments.

Creating High-Quality Analytical Rubrics

Anyone who has attempted to create a rubric from “scratch” has 

probably found that this is no easy task. It is not unusual for teachers creating rubrics to overlook an important criterion and only realize they did so when they use the rubric to score student work. For 

example, one teacher created a rubric for assessing student posters 

on types of muscles. Her criteria included: Clarity, Use of Color, Size, 

and Depiction of Three Types. Only when she used the rubric to score 

student posters did she realize she had not included Accuracy as a 

criterion. Therefore, if students labeled the types of muscle incorrectly 

(perhaps labeling cardiac muscle as skeletal muscle), nowhere in her 
35

rubric could she count off for this! To avoid such embarrassing experiences, we recommend that you create new rubrics while examining 

student work from past years. One way to begin this process is to sort 

the work into piles labeled “Low, Medium, and High.” Then, by looking at the differences in the work, you can begin to construct a list of 

important criteria. After you have the criteria, you can write descriptions for the different profi ciency levels. 

Another excellent way to create rubrics is to involve students in the 

development process. One reason for doing so is that many minds 

are better than one: Students may think of criteria that the teacher 

would miss. Another important reason for involving students in rubric 

creation is simply because of the educative value of this process. By 

discussing the criteria for quality work, students will get a clearer idea 

of the teacher’s expectations. Whether rubrics are teacher generated or student constructed, it is imperative to keep the learning 

target to the forefront, so that the rubric accurately refl ects what students are being asked to accomplish.

FIGURE 4.5 has a confusing name, but it may help you understand the 

important characteristics of a high-quality rubric. It is a rubric that can 

be used to judge the quality of an analytical rubric that you create 

for use in your classroom. If you score your teacher-constructed classroom rubric using FIGURE 4.5, you may fi nd weaknesses in the classroom rubric that you can correct before you disseminate it to students. 

By using FIGURE 4.5, you may enhance the quality of the rubric.

FIGURE 4.5

A Rubric for Assessing the Quality

of an Analytical Rubric

CRITERIA

Excellent (5) Acceptable (3) Unacceptable (1)

1 Criteria identify all 

components necessary for 

high-quality work.

Suffi cient criteria are present 

to defi ne high-quality work, 

but some “fi ne-tuning” criteria 

may be missing. 

Rubric fails to include critical 

criteria for excellence (eg., 

content accuracy). 

2 Criteria refl ect alignment to 

all stated objectives.

Minor objectives are not 

suffi ciently addressed by the 

criteria.

Major objectives are not 

suffi ciently addressed by the 

criteria.

3

Criteria are clearly feasible 

and measurable.

Criteria are measurable and 

reasonably feasible.

Criteria listed in the rubric may 

not be measurable, or they 

have low feasibility (e.g., they 

would require the teacher to 

individually observe each 

student, thereby using more 

time than warranted by the 

importance of the criterion).
36

DESCRIPTORS

Excellent (5) Acceptable (3) Unacceptable (1)

4

Descriptors always use 

“kid-friendly” language, 

language easily 

understood by the target 

student population.

Descriptors usually use “kidfriendly language,” but some 

“educationalese” is present.

Descriptors consistently use 

language inappropriate for the 

developmental/academic/

grade level of the student 

population.

5

Descriptors use observable 

characteristics and avoid 

overuse of vague quantitative terms (e.g., several, 

numerous, some).

Descriptors rely more on 

quantitative terms than on 

observable characteristics.

The use of too many generalities 

(as sometimes, occasionally, 

some, etc.) detracts from the 

clarity and leads to confusion.

6

Descriptors accurately and 

specifi cally describe levels 

of performance within the 

criterion.

Descriptors accurately 

describe levels of performance, but specifi city may 

be low (e.g., for a writing 

rubric, the descriptors might 

say the student “uses standard English.” This does not 

specifi cally explain what 

“standard English” means). 

Descriptors and criteria do 

not match OR there are no 

descriptors OR descriptors use 

one word (e.g., “always” for 

best performance, “sometimes” 

for acceptable performance, 

and “never” for unacceptable 

performance).

SCORING GUIDE

Excellent (5) Acceptable (3) Unacceptable (1)

7

The most important criteria 

are allotted the most 

number of points, thereby 

allowing students to 

prioritize efforts.

All criteria earn the same 

amount of points, as all are 

equally important.

All criteria earn the same amount 

of points, but some are clearly 

more important or more aligned 

to the objectives than others.

8

The scoring guide clearly 

demonstrates how rubric 

scores will be converted to 

grades.

A conversion scale is present, 

but may not address all 

grading levels (e.g. “10 points 

is an A” is stated, but no 

distinctions are given for A+ 

grades or A- grades).

No conversion scale is present.

FORMAT (TYPE) OF RUBRIC

Excellent (5) Acceptable (3) Unacceptable (1)

9

Type of rubric used supports purpose of assessment (e.g., an analytical, 

task-specifi c rubric for a 

formative assessment; a 

holistic, generalized rubric 

for a summative assessment).

Type of rubric used is appropriate (e.g., analytical for 

formative assessments and 

holistic only for summative 

assessments), but generalized may be substituted for 

task-specifi c rubrics if students 

will perform several iterations 

of this type of work throughout the school year (e.g., an 

“oral presentation” rubric). 

Type of rubric does not support 

purpose of assessment (e.g., a 

holistic rubric is used to judge 

performance on a newly taught 

skill).

FIGURE 4.5 (continued)
37

QUALITY OF THE FEEDBACK

Excellent (5) Acceptable (3) Unacceptable (1)

10

Rubric scores clearly 

pinpoint student’s 

strengths and weaknesses; 

student obtains suffi cient 

information on strategies 

that can be used to 

improve performance.

Rubric scores clearly pinpoint 

student’s strengths and 

weaknesses and provide 

some information on 

improvement strategies.

Rubric gives insuffi cient information to allow student to improve.

11

Rubric is instructional in 

nature; students can read 

and understand what 

high-quality work will look 

like; students can use 

rubric to self-assess own 

performance without input 

from the teacher.

Rubric is instructional in 

nature; students can read 

and understand what highquality work will look like.

Rubric does not contain suffi cient 

information for students to understand teacher expectations and/

or what quality work will look like.

Sample Rubrics

In this fi nal section of Chapter Four, we 

have included sample rubrics for several 

tasks typically found in science classrooms. 

The rubrics we have chosen are ones that 

are analytical in nature, in hopes that 

they will be used to provide meaningful 

feedback to students during the learning 

process. The rubrics are designed for use in a high school classroom. 

Each rubric also includes a sample score conversion chart. It should 

be emphasized, however, that the purpose of providing such scores 

is informational, rather than evaluative in nature. The scores show the 

students the profi ciency level at which they are currently working. They 

allow the students to predict a grade based on current performance, 

in hopes of encouraging improvement in this performance. Since 

the rubrics included here are formative formative in nature and because they in nature and because they

are being used to provide feedback to students during the learning 

process, grades would not actually be recorded. These same rubrics 

could be used summatively, however, after students are given suffi -

cient practice time and quality feedback on their practice attempts. 

Cautionary notes: The following rubrics are samples only. They are 

not ready-made rubrics available for instant use in your classroom. 

Teachers should use caution in using these or any other published 

rubrics. Rubrics should always be carefully evaluated for alignment 

with the curriculum being used. Since different states have different 

standards, it is important for the readers of this manual to understand 

that the sample rubrics included here may provide a better fi t for 

some standards than for others. 

Each sample rubric is preceded by a brief explanation of the task students are being asked to perform. Connections to content standards 

from the National Science Education Standards are also provided 

for each rubric. Before incorporating one of these sample rubrics in 

your own classroom, you should fi rst evaluate it using Figure 4.5. If 

the rubric does not align with the standards used in your classroom, 

it will need to be revised before you utilize it. If the greatest number 

of points are awarded to criteria that are of little value in your curriculum, the point values should also be adjusted. Finally, the sample 

�����������

����������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������������������������������

�������������������
38

rubrics all use a grade of “C” to indicate mastery of the task. If you 

wish to set a higher grade for mastery, you may need to indicate this 

in the score conversion chart by having students resubmit work below 

your mastery level.

The sample rubrics, like all rubrics, are not meant to be used as 

stand-alone instructional tools for students. While these rubrics are 

instructional in that they provide lists of criteria and descriptions of 

performance levels, students will need support in understanding 

the descriptions and in utilizing the rubrics. When introducing a new 

rubric to the class (particularly one that was primarily teachergenerated without input from students), the following suggestions 

may be helpful:

1) Set aside time within class for students to read through 

the rubric.

2) Highlight the learning target to be scored with this rubric.

3) Review each criterion, with its accompanying performance 

level descriptions with the students. During this review, ask 

students to put the descriptions in their own words and ask 

them to defi ne unfamiliar vocabulary. If they are unable to 

perform these tasks, more teacher explanations about the 

rubric are needed.

4) Provide a sample (or samples) of student work that students 

can score by using the rubric. Have students share their scores 

and explain why particular scores were given, using “rubric 

language” (language from the rubric) to justify the scores.

5) Work together with students to revise the rubric. Change language to be more kid-friendly, based upon student recommendations. Add or delete criteria as needed to more closely 

align the rubric with the learning target.

6) When using the rubric to score formative assignments, don’t 

hesitate to add written comments. Don’t feel constrained to 

simply circle particular scores for each dimension or to highlight rubric phrases. Teacher comments may help students 

understand strategies they can use to improve performance.

With the above cautions in mind, review the sample rubrics with a 

critical eye. Use the following Application suggestions to enhance 

the utility of each rubric in your science class.

�����������

�������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������
39

Designing an Experiment

In science, students are often asked to 

design an experiment in order to answer 

a question or to solve a problem. The 

rubric displayed in Figure 4.6 may be 

used to provide feedback on this design 

process. This rubric might be used when 

students are given “mystery powders” as 

well as several testing solutions and then 

asked to create a process for identifying 

each powder. With the modifi cation suggested at the bottom, this rubric could 

also be adapted to provide feedback 

on such engineering design tasks as creating a “cradle” that will protect the egg 

from breaking in the classic “egg drop” 

experiment.

This rubric may be used to assess the following in grades 9–12 

(National Research Council, 1996, p. 175):

● Identify questions and concepts that guide scientifi c 

investigations.

● Design and conduct scientifi c investigations.

�����������

����������������

��� �������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������

��� �����������������������������������������������������������

��� �����������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

� ����������������������������������������������������������

�������������������

��� ������������������������������������������������

��� ���������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������

����������������

��� ������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������

���������

���������������������

�� ������������������������

�� ���������������������������������������

�� ������������������������

�� ������������������������������������������

� ������������������������������

� ����������������
40

FIGURE 4.6 Generic Experimental Design Rubric

CRITERIA EXEMPLARY ACCEPTABLE RESUBMIT

E CNEICS

KNOWLEDGE

10 pointsDesign accurately and completely summarizes scientifi c concepts/facts/theories relevant to the experiment. Design explicitly makes connections between this scientifi c information and the experimental design.

7 pointsDesign includes essential scientifi c concepts/facts/theories but may not provide complete coverage of topic. While some connections between scientifi c knowledge and experimental design are explicit, insuffi cient explanations are present for the reader to completely understand the basis for choosing the experimental design.

4 pointsDesign includes some scientifi c concepts/facts/theories, but some essential items are missing (insuffi cient information for reader to gain a basic understanding of the topic). Connections between this information and experimental design are missing.

PROBLEM

7 pointsProblem is clearly stated as a question, is measurable, and it is feasible that a solution could be reached on the problem within the constraints of available equipment, environment, and time. Predictions/hypotheses relevant to the problem are included in the design.

5 pointsProblem is stated as a question and is measurable, but feasibility is low for solving the problem (it requires unusual equipment, special environments, long periods of time, etc.), as the student may fail to adequately explain how special conditions will be obtained. Predictions/hypotheses are relevant, but may not be completely explained. 

3 pointsProblem is not measurable and is not feasible as student makes no attempt to explain how special, required conditions will be met. Predictions/hypotheses are absent or irrelevant.

CONTROLS 

AND 

VARIABLES10 points Design clearly describes scientifi c controls and acknowledges/explains the necessity for the controls. Design identifi es independent and dependent variables correctly. 7 points Design clearly describes scientifi c controls, and the design identifi es independent and dependent variables correctly. 4 points Controls inadequately explained and/ or missing OR design fails to identify design fails to identify OR independent and dependent variables correctly.
41

CRITERIA EXEMPLARY ACCEPTABLE RESUBMIT

DATA 

COLLECTION 

PLAN

5 pointsIncludes a materials/equipment list. Materials/equipment are appropriate to the task and are the best available items to use in order to collect data relevant to the problem.

3 pointsIncludes a materials/equipment list. Materials/equipment are appropriate to the task, but may not be the best available items to use in order to collect relevant data.

1 pointNo materials/equipment list present OR list is list is ORincomplete OR materials/equipment listed materials/equipment listed ORare not suited to collect data relevant to stated problem.

PROCEDURE

12 pointsSteps in procedure are numbered and sequenced logically. Suffi cient explicit details are included to allow the reader to duplicate the experiment. Illustrations (as for set-ups of equipment) are accurate and would aid the reader in duplicating the experiment. Steps outlined in the procedure align to stated problem and clearly have the potential to answer the experimental question. Safety rules are accurately incorporated into procedural steps. Suffi cient trials or multiple tests are present to support (or not support) the predictions/hypotheses.

9 pointsSteps in procedure are sequenced logically, and enough information is present to duplicate the experiment. Steps align to the problem and have the potential to answer the question. Safety rules are accurately incorporated into procedural steps. Suffi cient trials are present.

5 pointsSteps are not sequenced logically ORprocedure does not provide enough details to enable duplication of the experiment ORsafety rules are not incorporated into the procedure OR suffi cient trials are not present. sufficient trials are not present. OR

CONCLUSION 

PLAN

5 pointsDesign designates the manner in which fi ndings will be graphically displayed (table, line graph, bar graph, pie chart, etc.). Graphic is best match for displaying this type of data. 

3 pointsDesign designates the manner in which fi ndings will be graphically displayed. Graphic chosen is adequate for the task.

1 pointDesign fails to designate manner in which fi ndings will be graphically displayed OR graphic chosen is inadequate for the task.
42

CRITERIA EXEMPLARY ACCEPTABLE RESUBMIT

SELF-ASSESSMENT5 points Student uses this rubric to assess the design and gives self a score in each dimension of the rubric. Student writes a short paragraph highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design. In the paragraph, the student provides accurate rationale, with supporting details (using language from the rubric), for the classifi cation of the strengths and weaknesses. 3 points Student uses this rubric to assess the design and gives self a score in each dimension. Student writes a short paragraph highlight- ing strengths and weaknesses of the experi- mental design. Although not stated, the rationale for classifying strengths and weak- nesses is clearly related to those described in the rubric. 1 point Student fails to give self scores in each dimension of the rubric OR fails to write fails to write OR a paragraph highlighting strengths and weaknesses OR the strengths and the strengths and OR weaknesses described by the student do not relate to those described by the rubric.

Optional Additions for Engineering-type Experimental Design (e.g., “egg-drop” experiment)

DESIGN 

SPECIFICATIONS5 points Procedure incorporates (and never violates) the outlined requirements or specifi cations for the designed product. 5 points Procedure incorporates (and never violates) the outlined requirements or specifi cations for the designed product. 1 point Procedure violates the outlined requirements or specifi cations for the designed product.

Score Conversion (without Engineering Design criterion)48–54 ➔ A 40–47 ➔ B 30–39 ➔ C Below 30 ➔ Resubmit
43

Presenting Scientifi c FindingsIn science, students are often called upon to present their work to others. This is an important aspect of science, as scientists must share their fi ndings with their colleagues in order to advance scientifi c knowledge. The rubric in FIGURE 4.7 provides criteria for a multimedia slide presentation of scientifi c work, while FIGURE 4.8 describes important oral presentation skills.The multimedia slide presentation rubric may be used in assessing the following expectation for students in grades 9–12 (National Research Council, 1996, p. 175):● Students will use technology to improve investigations and communications.Both the multimedia slide presentation rubric and the oral presentation rubric could be used in assessing the following expectation:● Students will communicate and defend a scientifi c argument.FIGURE 4.7Rubric for the Technology Slide Presentation in ScienceNote: Oral presentation of slides will be assessed using the Oral Presentation Rubric

CRITERIA POINTS POSSIBLE POINTS AWARDED EXEMPLARY INTERMEDIATE ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE— RESUBMIT

CONTENT 20

20 points

Scientifi c information on slides is accurate and covers topic completely and in depth. All essential facts (ones needed to foster understanding of the topic) are present.

15–17 pointsScientifi c information on slides is generally accurate (no more than 2 errors in entire presentation), and most essential facts are present. Topic not completely covered, but includes enough elaboration that audience will gain a fair understanding of the topic.

10–14 pointsIncludes little essential information and/or scientifi c facts presented may be inaccurate (2–4 errors in entire presentation). Incomplete coverage, but audience may still gain a basic understanding of the topic.

0 pointsInadequate coverage and/or more than 4 factual errors and/or most essential facts missing.
CRITERIA POINTS POSSIBLE POINTS AWARDED EXEMPLARY INTERMEDIATE ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE— RESUBMIT

SUBSTANTIATION 15

15 pointsScience facts are substantiated with on-slide citations and with accurate references slides at the end of the presentation. All needed citations are present. (They are needed if the information is not a personal idea, but borrowed, quoted, or adapted from another source.) All citations are encompassed in the reference slides. Citations and references use APA style correctly.

12–14 points1–2 needed citations are missing OR 1–2 citations left out of reference list OR 1–2 citations or references use incorrect APA style.

9–11 points3–4 needed citations are missing OR 3–4 citations 3–4 citations OR

left out of reference list OR 3–4 citations or 3–4 citations or ORreferences use incorrect APA style.

0 pointsMore than 4 needed citations are missing ORmore than 4 citations left out of reference list ORmore than 4 citations or references use incorrect APA style.

LAYOUT/DESIGN 10

10 pointsTitles use 44 size font; subtitles use 36 size. No information on slide is less than 26 size. Font style chosen enhances legibility; colors enhance readability, rather than interfere with it. Format is consistent throughout presentation (e.g., important terms in red; bullets all same format; etc.) Transitions and animations are purposeful. They contribute to an understanding of the science topic rather than slowing the presentation, interfering with understanding, or simply adding “bells and whistles” for no apparent reason.

8–9 pointsCorrect font sizes used, font style is legible, original color enhances readability, but “followed links” colors may make words hard to discern. There may be 1–2 inconsistencies in format. Transitions and animations are generally purposeful, although 1–2 may fail to contribute to the understanding of the science topic.

5–7 points1–4 errors in font size, OR colors used in original text interfere with readability, OR font style detracts rather than enhances legibility, OR 3–5 inconsistencies in format.

0 pointsMore than 4 errors in font size, OR colors used c

olors used OR

in original text make words illegible, ORfont style makes words illegible, OR more than 5 inconsistencies in format.
45

CRITERIA POINTS POSSIBLE POINTS AWARDED EXEMPLARY INTERMEDIATE ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE— RESUBMIT

ORGANIZATION 10

10 pointsSequence chosen enhances the understanding of the science topic. This may be from specifi c to general, general to specifi c, chronological, etc. Science knowledge builds as audience moves through slides.

8–9 points1–2 slides depart from overall organizational scheme, thereby detracting from knowledge construction by audience.

5–7 points

3–4 slides depart from overall organizational scheme, thereby detracting from knowledge construction by audience.

0 pointsNo discernable organizational scheme.

GRAPHICS 10

10 pointsEach slide contains at least one graphic. Graphics on a particular slide help illuminate (help audience understand) the information on the slide. There is a mix of graphic types within the presentation (mix of photos, graphics, tables, clip art, icons, symbols, studentcreated, etc.). Graphic size is appropriate (not too big or too small) and resolution is good.

8–9 pointsThere is a good mix of graphic types within the presentation. 1–2 slides contain no graphics OR 1–2 slides contain graphics that fail to illuminate the information on the slide OR 1–2 graphic sizes or resolutions are inappropriate.

5–7 pointsSlides primarily display only 4–5 types of graphics OR 3–5 contain no graphics OR 3–5 contain graphics that fail to illuminate the information on the slide OR 3—graphic sizes or resolutions are inappropriate.

0 pointsSlides display 3 or less types of graphics ORmore than 5 slides contain no graphics OR more than 5 slides more than 5 slides ORcontain graphics that fail to illuminate the information on the slide OR more than 5 graphic more than 5 graphic ORsizes or resolutions are inappropriate.
CRITERIA POINTS POSSIBLE POINTS AWARDED EXEMPLARY INTERMEDIATE ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE— RESUBMIT

SCINAHCEM

5

5 pointsGrammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization are all correct. No other mechanical errors (subject/verb agreement, incomplete sentences, etc.) are present.

3–4 points1–2 mechanical errors

1–2 points3–4 mechanical errors

0 points5 or more mechanical errors

Score Conversion (without Engineering Design criterion)55–70 ➔ A 54–62 ➔ B 30–48 ➔ C Below 30 ➔ RedoFIGURE 4.8Oral Presentation in Science

PERFORMANCE 

ELEMENT

POINTS 

POSSIBLE

POINTS 

AWARDED EXEMPLARY GOOD ADEQUATE RESUBMIT

AWARENESS OF 

AUDIENCE 10

10 pointsSignifi cantly increases audience understanding and knowledge of topic;Effectively convinces an audience to recognize the validity of a point of view.

8 pointsRaises audience understanding and awareness of most points; Clear point of view, but development or support is inconclusive and incomplete.

6 pointsRaises audience understanding and knowledge of some points; Point of view may be clear, but lacks development or support.

4 pointsFails to increase audience understanding or knowledge of topic. Fails to effectively convince the audience.
47

PERFORMANCE 

ELEMENT

POINTS 

POSSIBLE

POINTS 

AWARDED EXEMPLARY GOOD ADEQUATE RESUBMIT

STRENGTH OF MATERIAL

AND ORGANIZATION 20

20 pointsClear purpose and subject; Pertinent examples, facts, and/or statistics; Conclusions/ideas are supported by evidence; Major ideas summarized and audience left with full understanding of presenter’s position.

15 pointsHas some success defi ning purpose and subject; Some examples, facts, and/or statistics support the subject; Includes some data or evidence to support conclusions or ideas; May need to refi ne summary or fi nal idea.

10 pointsAttempts to defi ne purpose and subject; Weak examples, facts, and/or statistics, which do not adequately support the subject; Includes very thin data or evidence in support of ideas or conclusions; Major ideas may need to be summarized or audience is left with vague idea.

5 pointsSubject and purpose are not clearly defi ned; Very weak or no support of subject through use of examples, facts, and/or statistics; Totally insuffi cient support for ideas or conclusions. Major ideas left unclear, audience left with no new ideas.

DELIVERY 20

20 pointsRelaxed, self-confi dent and appropriately dressed for purpose or audience; Builds trust and holds attention by direct eye contact with all parts of audience; Fluctuations in volume and infl ection help to maintain audience interest and emphasize key points;

15 pointsQuick recovery from minor mistakes; Appropriately dressed; Fairly consistent use of direct eye contact with audience; Satisfactory variation of volume and infl ection.

10 pointsSome tension or indifference apparent and possible inappropriate dress for purpose or audience; Occasional but unsustained eye contact with audience; Uneven volume with little or no infl ection.

5 pointsNervous tension obvious and/or inappropriately dressed for purpose or audience: No effort to make eye contact with audience; Low volume and/or monotonous tone cause audience to disengage.

Score Conversion44–50 ➔ A 38–43 ➔ B 26–37 ➔ C 19–25 ➔ D Below 19 ➔ Resubmit
48

Writing a Lab Report

Another common task given to science students is to write a laboratory report of an experiment. The rubric shown in Figure 4.9 would 

provide meaningful feedback to high school students writing such 

reports.

This rubric addresses parts of the following (National Research 

Council, 1996 pp. 174–176):

● Design and conduct scientifi c investigation.

● Use technology and mathematics to improve investigations 

and communications.

● Formulate and revise scientifi c explanations and models 

using logic and evidence.

● Communicate and defend a scientifi c argument.

��������

�������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������������������

��������������������������

��������������������������

�����������������������

�������������������������������

�������������������������

������������������������

CRITERIA EXEMPLARY ADEQUATE RESUBMIT PROBLEM STATEMENT

5 points

Problem is stated as

a question. Problem 

is appropriate to 

assigned task.

3 points

Problem is clearly 

identifi ed but may 

not be in the form of a 

question, and problem is 

appropriate to assigned 

task.

1 point

Inappropriate problem 

or problem that is 

insuffi ciently identifi ed/

explained.

RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC 

CONCEPTS

7 points

Student explains all 

scientifi c concepts 

(correctly using scientifi c 

terms/vocabulary) 

relevant to the problem, 

explaining why these are 

relevant. Student provides 

references for the 

background information 

from text or reference 

materials. 

5 points

Student explains several 

scientifi c concepts (correctly using scientifi c 

terms/vocabulary) relevant to the problem, but 

may fail to include others. 

Student explains why the 

concepts presented are 

relevant, and student provides references from text 

or reference materials.

2 points

Scientifi c concepts are 

missing OR irrelevant to irrelevant to 

problem OR student fails student fails 

to correctly use scientifi c 

terms/vocabulary OR student fails to provide references from text or other 

reference materials.

FIGURE 4.9

Laboratory 

Report Rubric
49

CRITERIA EXEMPLARY ADEQUATE RESUBMIT HYPOTHESIS

5 points

Hypothesis/prediction 

is based on proper use 

and interpretation of 

background information 

and is not just a guess. 

Hypothesis is clearly 

stated and aligns with 

the experiment (the 

hypothesis can be 

supported or refuted by 

the data collected).

3 points

Hypothesis/prediction is 

based on background 

information, but some 

essential information may 

be missing or unclear. 

Hypothesis is aligned to 

experiment.

1 point

Hypothesis/prediction 

is not supported by 

background information 

OR is not aligned to the is not aligned to the 

experiment.

MATERIALS/

EQUIPMENT 

NEEDED

5 points

All materials and equipment needed are listed. 

Illustrations/diagrams 

are provided to enhance 

clarity. Such graphics 

include labels giving 

names of relevant equipment/materials.

3 points

All materials and 

equipment needed are 

listed.

1 point

List of materials/

equipment is incomplete 

OR missing. missing.

EXPERIMENTAL 

PROCEDURES

7 points

Steps in procedure 

are numbered and 

sequenced logically. 

Suffi cient explicit details 

are included to allow the 

reader to duplicate the 

experiment.

5 points

Steps in procedure are 

sequenced logically. 

Suffi cient explicit details 

are included to allow the 

reader to duplicate the 

experiment.

2 points

Steps are not sequenced 

logically OR insuffi cient insufficient 

details are present to 

allow the reader to 

duplicate the experiment.

SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

5 points

All possible relevant 

safety issues are listed, 

and student describes 

how to avoid/minimize 

such issues.

There is little or no risk of 

safety or discomfort to the 

student.

3 points

The most important 

and relevant safety 

issues are listed, and 

student describes how 

to avoid/minimize these 

issues. However, student 

fails to mention some 

minor safety issues that 

are always relevant (as 

checking glassware for 

cracks). Some further 

explanations could minimize discomfort to the 

student, but safety risk is 

minimal.

1 point

Important safety issues 

are not listed OR student student 

fails to describe how 

listed issues can be 

avoided/minimized.

Safety risk is not 

appropriate.

RECORDED DATA

10 points

Student identifi es controls, 

dependent, and independent variables correctly. Data is displayed 

graphically in an easy to 

understand form. If measurements are taken, correct units are included. 

All signifi cant data (data 

needed to solve the problem) is recorded.

7 points

Student identifi es controls, 

dependent, and independent variables correctly. 

If measurements are 

taken, correct units are 

included. All signifi cant 

data is recorded.

4 points

Student fails to correctly 

identify controls or 

variables OR no units no units 

are included OR not 

all signifi cant data is 

recorded.
50

CRITERIA EXEMPLARY ADEQUATE RESUBMIT CALCULATIONS

7 points

Formulas are provided 

and used correctly 

(e.g., Density = Mass 

divided by Volume). 

All measurements 

contain proper units. 

All calculations are 

performed correctly, 

yielding accurate 

answers.

5 points

Appropriate formulas are 

used, but may not be written out. All measurements 

contain proper units. Most 

calculations are performed correctly, yielding 

accurate answers (inaccuracy must not occur in 

greater than 2% of calculations).

2 points

Formulas are inappropriate or not in use OR measurements lack units OR

greater than 2% error on 

calculations.

CONCLUSION (WORDS)

15 points

In the conclusion, 

student states if hypothesis is accepted or 

rejected. Any conclusion 

is based upon the data 

collected and the rationale for the conclusion is 

completely explained by 

referring to this data. The 

student’s rationale leads 

correctly to the acceptance or rejection of the 

hypothesis.

10 points

In the conclusion, student 

states if hypothesis is 

accepted or rejected. 

The conclusion, while 

supported by the data, 

may be incompletely 

explained.

5 points

Conclusion does not 

refer to the hypothesis 

OR conclusion is not conclusion is not 

supported by the data.

CONCLUSION 

(GRAPHIC)

7 points

Graph form chosen 

is appropriate for the 

data. All data points are 

accurately plotted. Graph 

contains an overall title 

and axes are labeled. 

Intervals are appropriate 

and consistent and 

measurements are given. 

Graph is easy to read and 

understand.

5 points

Graph form chosen is 

appropriate for the data. 

All data points are accurately plotted. Graph 

contains an overall title 

and axes are labeled. 

Intervals are consistent 

and measurements 

given. Some use of inappropriate intervals may 

reduce clarity, making 

graph hard to read.

2 points

Graph is missing OR

form is inappropriate 

OR required titles/labels required titles/labels 

are missing OR intervals intervals 

are not consistent OR

measurements are not 

given.

REFLECTION

5 points

Student uses the rubric to 

rate his/her performance 

and highlights areas 

of weakness. Student 

suggests appropriate 

strategies for addressing 

these weaknesses. 

3 points

Student uses the rubric to 

rate his/her performance 

and highlights areas of 

weakness.

1 point

Student fails to use 

rubric to rate his/her 

performance OR

uses rubric, but fails 

to highlight areas of 

weakness.

Score Conversionthese weaknesses. Score Conversion

these weaknesses. 

60–75 ➔ A 46–59 ➔ B 34–45 ➔ C 23–33 ➔ D Below 22 ➔ Resubmit

FIGURE 4.9 (continued)
51

CHAPTER FIVE

Analyzing Assessment 

Data and Making 

Instructional 

Modifications

So far in this publication, we have explored two quadrants of the 

Classroom Assessment Cycle. These are: 1) Clarify learning targets 

and 2) Gather evidence in a variety of ways. These two quadrants 

compose the half of the Classroom Assessment Cycle that is most 

commonly implemented in classrooms. The remaining two quadrants of the Cycle are less frequently seen in classrooms. It seems that 

teachers sometimes stop moving through the Cycle after they collect 

assessment data. They fail to follow through and analyze the data in 

order to make inferences or draw conclusions about student learning. 

Let’s examine transcripts of two interviews with science teachers to 

see which of the two teachers is completing the Cycle. Both teachers 

teach third grade.

Interview One: Interviewer (I) and Mrs. Esposito (E)

I: I see in your unit plan that you’ve included a diagnostic assessment on Day One. Can you tell me about this 

assessment?

E: Yes. The students will start a KWL chart (What I Know, What 

I Want to Know, What I Learned) before we begin our 

study of plants. They’ll keep this in their notebooks and 

add to it every day.

I: What is your goal for this activity? 

E: I want to activate the prior knowledge of the students 

and then encourage them to track their own learning.

I: How will you know if you’ve met these goals?

E: They’ll turn in their completed KWL charts at the end of 

the unit. 

��������

�����������

����

�������

�����������
52

I: How will your assessment data be used to make instructional modifi cations?

E: If some students turn in incomplete KWL charts at the end 

of this unit, I’ll conference with these students.

Interview Two: Interviewer (I) and Mrs. Gregory (G)

I: Tell me about this seminar you’re planning on scientifi c 

inquiry.

G: The students will do some text reading and defi ne terms 

(e.g., problem, hypothesis, control) before the seminar. 

Then, I’ll present a scientifi c problem to them about 

plants. For example, I might just refer to the plant we 

have in the classroom that looks like it’s dying and ask, 

“What can we do?” This will begin the class discussion 

on the scientifi c inquiry.

I: What is your goal for this activity?

G: Actually, I have two. I want to build student knowledge 

of steps involved in a scientifi c investigation, and I want 

them to practice their seminar skills (listening, speaking, 

critical thinking).

I: How will you know if you’ve met these goals?

G: I’ll take anecdotal notes during the seminar, using a 

matrix I’ve prepared. This will help me keep track of the 

seminar skills demonstrated by each student. To check 

their knowledge of scientifi c inquiry, I’ll give the students 

another problem and ask them to design an experiment 

(working in small groups) that will help solve the problem.

I: How will your assessment data be used to make instructional modifi cations?

G: I’ll review my notes about the seminar and conference 

with students to give them feedback about their performances. In the individual conferences, we’ll brainstorm 

strategies for improving their performances. Students will 

present their ideas for the new experiment to the class 

and will receive feedback from me and from the other 

student groups. Based on the presentations, I will note 

areas of diffi culty and plan either some learning center 

activities or some re-teaching strategies to use with small 

groups in order to address these.

Both teachers are collecting assessment data. It is clear that Mrs. 

Gregory is utilizing the data to impact her instruction in a more timely 

manner than that employed by Mrs. Esposito. For example, if Mrs. 

Esposito only takes up her diagnostic KWL chart at the end of the 

unit, she is missing the opportunity to discover what her students knew 

about plants before beginning the unit. She is also failing to identify 
53

possible misconceptions the students hold. Without this knowledge, 

she cannot plan instruction that will effectively eradicate these misconceptions. Therefore, her “diagnostic” assessment is not actually 

being used to diagnose student learning. In fact, she is using this 

KWL chart more as a formative assessment. (She seems to be using 

the KWL more as a self-assessment tool for students; one that helps 

students understand what they’ve learned and what they still need 

to learn.) Looking at the KWL at the end of the unit means that Mrs. 

Esposito is not using assessment data to help her adjust instruction 

in this unit. The data she collects may help her structure future units, unit. The data she collects may help her structure future units,

but the data arrives too late to help students learn the material in the 

current unit. So, no immediate instructional modifi cations are being 

made by Mrs. Esposito.

Conversely, Mrs. Gregory is using her assessment data to continuously 

modify her instruction. She is collecting anecdotal data on seminar 

performances, reviewing these, and then helping students strategize 

ways to improve. She is also using the assessment of the student 

experiment presentations to differentiate instruction for those who 

are struggling. She plans to note areas of diffi culty and then address 

these in learning centers or by re-teaching small groups of students. In 

this manner, Mrs. Gregory’s assessment data has immediate impact 

upon instruction. Students receive timely feedback that will help 

them improve performance in the current unit.

From these two scenarios, we see that it is not enough to collect the 

assessment data; the teacher must also:

● Review the assessment data immediately after collection.

● Interpret the data, formulate inferences and/or conclusions.

● Provide feedback (verbal, written comments, rubric scores, 

etc.) to students relative to their performances.

● Use the fi ndings of the analysis to immediately adjust 

instruction.

In order to proceed effectively through these steps, we need to 

examine what is meant by analysis and look at ways we can modify 

instruction to enhance individual student performance.

Analysis

The graphic in FIGURE 5.1 provides a perspective on the analysis of 

data. The organizing question that the teacher must ask before 

beginning this analysis is, “What did the student learn and how well 

did he/she learn it?” We have seen that it is important to ask this 

question frequently; perhaps even on a daily basis. In this manner, 

assessment data can have an immediate effect on instruction in 

that the teacher can intervene quickly to address individual student 

learning diffi culties. Data analysis can provide teachers with insights 

about student learning in the short term. However, continuous data 

analysis can also be useful in the long term. As we examine FIGURE 5.1, 

let’s work through an example of the long-term use of data analysis.
54

���������

���������

�������

���������

��������

�����

�����������

������������

����������

����������

����������

FIGURE 5.1

Data Analysis Process
55

At the end of the grading period, Mr. Gilley, a sixth-grade 

teacher, sat down to examine the assessment data he had 

collected over the quarter. He was particularly interested in 

reviewing assessments from those students who appeared 

to be struggling—those students who most often needed 

individual attention from him in order to be successful. 

He also looked at students who had low average grades. 

Surprisingly, one such student was Luci. 

Before reviewing the assessments, Mr. Gilley had thought of 

Luci as one of his best students. She always seemed attentive and appeared to understand all the concepts presented. Looking at Luci’s assessments in the Adaptations of 

Animals unit revealed the following:

1) Diagnostic paragraph that asked students to defi ne 

“adaptation,” give one example of an animal adaptation, and explain how this adaptation aided the animal 

to survive: Luci did not attempt to defi ne adaptation, but 

wrote, “Polar bears—fur.”

2) Reading comprehension sheet that included fi ll in the 

blank and short-answer question. This worksheet followed an assigned text reading on animal adaptations: Luci successfully completed the fi ll-in-the-blank 

questions. On the short-answer questions, Luci only 

attempted two of the four questions. She wrote her 

answers as phrases, not as complete sentences. Most of 

her answers were factual in nature, even when the question asked for analysis. This caused her to receive a low 

assessment on this assignment.

3) Matching test on terms from the chapter:

Luci made a 100.

4) Animal Adaptation Project in which students were 

assigned a particular climatic zone and then asked to 

create an imaginary creature who could successfully 

survive in this zone. The project required that students 

draw their creature and then write a supporting paragraph identifying the adaptations and explaining why 

these adaptations would make the creature successful: The rubric used for scoring this project is shown in 

Figure 5.2. The rubric shows that Luci provided a detailed 

drawing of her creature and labeled this illustration with 

arrows and words as “claws—catch food.” Her animal 

was clearly well adapted to survive in the tundra zone 

she was assigned. Luci’s paragraph was very sketchy. It 

contained a list of adaptations with few explanations. 

Therefore, she earned very few points within the “paragraph” portion of the rubric. This negatively impacted 

her overall performance on this project.
FIGURE 5.2

Animal Adaptation Project Rubric—Luci’s Scores

CRITERIA EXCELLENT ADEQUATE RESUBMIT DRAWING SIZE

2 pts.

Animal is sized to use most 

of the space on a standard 

piece of notebook paper

1 pt.

Animal is sized to use at least 

3⁄4 of the space on a standard 

piece of notebook paper

0 pts.

Animal takes up less than 3⁄4 

of the space on a standard 

piece of notebook paper

DRAWING DETAILS

12 pts.

Animal is shown with more 

than 3 adaptations. Each 

adaptation is labeled with 

a name and a function. 

The function matches the 

adaptation (Ex: teeth are 

labeled for fi ghting or eating 

functions, not for adapting 

to weather).

9 pts.

Animal is shown with at 

least 3 adaptations. Each 

adaptation is labeled with 

a name and a function. 

The function matches the 

adaptation.

0–8 pts.

Animal is shown with fewer 

than 3 adaptations OR 

adaptations are not labeled 

with names and function.

PARAGRAPH

8 pts.

Paragraph accurately 

explains why animal will 

need the adaptations for 

the assigned environment. 

At least 4 adaptations are 

explained.

6 pts.

Paragraph accurately 

explains why animal will 

need at least 3 adaptations 

for the assigned 

environment.

0–5 pts.

Paragraph fails to 

accurately explain the 

animal’s need for at least 3 

adaptations.

GRAMMAR

5 pts.

Paragraph contains no 

spelling, capitalization, or 

other grammatical errors. 

Student writes in complete 

sentences.

3 pts.

Paragraph contains 

2–3 grammatical errors. 

Student writes in complete 

sentences.

0–2 pts.

Paragraph contains more 

than 3 grammatical errors 

OR student fails to write in student fails to write in 

complete sentences.

ADAPTED TO 

ENVIRONMENT

4 pts.

More than 3 adaptations 

match animal needs in the 

assigned environment.

3 pts.

At least 3 adaptations 

match animal needs in the 

assigned environment.

0–2 pts.

Less than 3 adaptations 

match animal needs in the 

assigned environment.

Score Conversion

28–31 ➔ A 23–27 ➔ B 18–22 ➔ C

Below 18 ➔ Student must resubmit assignment

�����������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������

��� ��������������������������������������������������

��� ����������������������������������������������������������������������

��� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������

��� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������
57

After reviewing this assessment data, Mr. Gilley began to 

look for patterns. One pattern that seemed particularly 

strong was Luci’s performance on written assignments. 

It appeared that Luci rarely wrote in paragraphs. She 

appeared to use labels or phrases in lieu of complete sentences or organized, cohesive paragraphs. Another pattern 

that emerged was Luci’s consistent high performance on 

selected response items. This behavior seemed more in line 

with Mr. Gilley’s own perceptions of Luci’s performance.

Once he had noted patterns in Luci’s performances, Mr. 

Gilley refl ected on underlying causes for these patterns. 

He began to formulate inferences about her academic 

behaviors. It was obvious from the examination of her 

selected response work that Luci was learning science 

concepts. It was also obvious that writing was a problem 

for Luci. Mr. Gilley tried to list possibilities for this problem:

a) Luci has not had suffi cient instruction in writing skills.

b) Luci has had little experience in writing.

c) Luci has a specifi c learning disability related to writing.

In order to narrow these possibilities, Mr. Gilley decided he 

needed more information. He would not be able to test or 

verify his inferences without collecting additional data. 

First, he consulted Luci’s cumulative folder to see if she had 

ever been tested for specifi c learning disabilities. He found 

that she had been tested, but that no specifi c learning 

disabilities were found. He then talked with Luci’s current 

language arts teacher, Mrs. Riley, about her performance 

in that class. Mrs. Riley reported that she, too, had noticed 

Luci’s reluctance to attempt, and poor performance on, 

written assignments. She told Mr. Gilley that she had begun 

to work closely with Luci, giving her individual attention 

and extra help in order to develop her writing skills. Finally, 

Mr. Gilley also conferenced with Luci and her parents and 

shared Luci’s assessment results with them. This conference 

revealed that Luci felt unprepared to write and that she was 

reluctant to “show her ignorance” as she put it, by writing. 

She had had some bad experiences in the past, feeling 

ridiculed and belittled by some of the feedback she had 

received on her writing. Because she found writing to be 

risky to her self-esteem, Luci avoided it.

Through this data collection process, Mr. Gilley obtained 

suffi cient information to draw conclusions about Luci’s 

writing performance. He concluded that Luci’s poor writing 

skills were the result of insuffi cient instruction and insuffi cient 

practice, rather than attributing this poor performance to a 

specifi c learning disability. Once he had identifi ed the problem through the data analysis process described here, 

Mr. Gilley was ready to plan instructional modifi cations to 

enhance Luci’s academic performance in his science class.
58

Instructional Modifi cations

In the above data analysis example (Mr. Gilley and Luci), we saw that 

after the analysis process, Mr. Gilley’s next step was to plan needed 

instructional modifi cations. By analyzing his students’ (Luci’s and all 

the other students’) work and then designing instructional strategies 

to meet the needs of his students, Mr. Gilley demonstrated an example of differentiation in the classroom. 

Differentiation

When teachers modify instructional plans to meet the needs of specifi c students, they differentiate instruction. Differentiated instruction 

simply means “teachers reacting responsively to a learner’s needs” 

(Tomlinson & Allan, 2000, p. 5). Teachers who differentiate instruction 

know that one size does not fi t all. They recognize that they teach a fit all. They recognize that they teach a 

group of diverse learners with different learning styles, interests, and 

prior experiences. 

Almost all teachers differentiate instruction to some extent. For example, when a lecturing teacher notices a puzzled expression on a student’s face, she may pause, and then present the information again, 

but use a different manner of explanation this time. In this process, 

she is reacting to an individual student’s needs and adjusting her 

instruction to fi t that student’s needs. In this chapter, we emphasize 

that teachers need to go beyond such stimulus-response reactions 

and think proactively about differentiation in order to make differentiation a natural part of the classroom environment. 

In the past when we have urged teachers to differentiate in their 

classroom, we have heard a chorus of groans and muttered comments such as “Impossible!” and “Not enough time!” This led us 

to facilitate a discussion of differentiation to see if our defi nition 

matched that of the teachers. We found that it did not. Before we 

go further with a discussion of differentiation in this chapter, we need 

to clarify the term. We have already stated what differentiation IS 

(teachers responding to individual student needs). However, we will 

now explain what differentiation is not.

Differentiation myths:

1) Differentiation is equivalent to individualized instruction.

 “Individualized instruction” evokes images of students sitting with 

self-paced, self-checking booklets. In such classrooms, one envisions no peer interactions and few teacher/student interactions. 

Today, many home school students experience a new brand of 

individualized instruction—a one-on-one experience between 

the teacher and the student. We don’t want to re-institute the fi rst 

description of individualized instruction, and we aren’t able to do 

the second. In differentiated instruction, we are not individualizing individualizing

or tailoring instruction for each and every student. 
59

2) Differentiation is only important for low-ability students.

 High-ability students need differentiation as much as low-ability 

students or they become bored, restless, and disruptive. 

3) Differentiation means that we can never have whole-group 

activities.

 Everything in a differentiated classroom does not take place in 

small groups. Whole-group activities do occur. The teacher may 

demonstrate or model a skill or process—tell a story, share information, etc. When we hold students accountable for the learning 

acquired through whole-group activities, we may do this in a variety of ways.

4) Differentiation requires ability grouping.

 Were you ever ability grouped? Didn’t you fi gure it out, even 

though your group had a non-judgmental name (e.g. the 

Redbirds)? Students will fi gure it out, too. Differentiated instruction doesn’t mean setting up the classroom to keep the low 

kids low and the high kids high—we don’t want any self-fulfi lling 

prophecies. Rather, a differentiated classroom takes the “Army” 

approach: Be all that you can be.

5) Differentiation means the “bright kids” have to do more.

 No, we don’t expect the kids who catch on the fastest to do 

more—they may just do different things. They may be excused 

from some practice activities, as they’ve already “gotten” it—they 

don’t need the practice.

6) Differentiation means I have to incorporate choices for students in 

every assignment, activity, or assessment.

 Teachers should only differentiate instruction when there is a perceived need to do so. It is important to remember that teachers’ 

classrooms aren’t judged to be “differentiated” or “not differentiated” based on a single day or a single assignment. Differentiating 

means using a variety of instructional strategies and assessment 

methods as your students move through the curriculum.

Returning to the example of Mr. Gilley’s classroom, Mr. Gilley used 

the data analysis process to determine the needs of his students. 

We know he found that Luci needed extra practice and extra support in writing skills. However, we don’t have the results of the other 

analyses he performed. Perhaps he found other students in the class 

who shared Luci’s need for instructional modifi cations in writing. He 

certainly found students with other learning needs. By pinpointing 

the learning strengths and weaknesses of the students in his class, 

Mr. Gilley was able to plan instruction to meet the needs of all his 

students. How might this be accomplished? One expert in differentiation, Carol Ann Tomlinson (1999), recommends planning for differentiation within three different dimensions of the classroom: Product, 

Process, and Content. The chart in FIGURE 5.3 provides defi nitions of 

these dimensions and gives examples of how teachers may differentiate in these areas.
60

FIGURE 5.3

Dimensions of Differentation

 DEFINITION IDEAS FROM THE EXPERTS

DIMENSION

CONTENT

Facts, concepts, generalization, 

principles, attitudes, and skills 

related to the subject. Includes 

both what the teacher plans 

for students to learn and how 

the student gains access 

to the desired knowledge, 

understanding, and skills.

Choosing text/novels/reading assignments to address 

different reading levels.

Present info one time as “break it down from the whole”; 

next time build it up from its parts.

Use readings, videos, computer demos, audio 

recordings to present material.

Use pre-assessments as journal entries, class discussions, 

quizzes to assess student readiness to learn.

Provide a note-taking matrix to some students.

PROCESS

How the learner comes to 

make sense of, understand, 

and “own” key facts, concepts, 

generalizations and skills. 

(Synonym for Activity)

Encourage student conversations—

have them explain concepts in “kid language.”

Say, “This reminds me of...” to help students make 

connections.

Ask students to fi nd patterns, categories, 

similarities/differences in data.

Ask students to make and justify judgments.

Work with students to develop rubrics.

Allow for varied working arrangements

(work alone or in groups).

PRODUCTS

Items the student can use to 

demonstrate what she has 

come to know, understand, 

and be able to do as the result 

of study (e.g., portfolio, test, 

project).

Encourage students to express what they have learned

in various ways.

Provide or encourage varied use of resources in 

preparing products.

Provide product assignments at varying degrees 

of diffi culty.

Use a wide variety of assessment methods.

Encourage culminating assessments such as 

“Senior Projects.”

For example, Mr. Gilley knows that Luci and several other students 

in the class have poor writing skills. He could choose to differentiate 

in the “Process” dimension by providing “choice as to how students 

will express knowledge (write a paper, make a diagram, construct a 

model).” This would allow Luci and the other students to express their 

scientifi c knowledge in ways other than writing. However, if he wishes 

to enhance the writing skills of his students, Mr. Gilley may choose to 

differentiate in the “Products” dimension by allowing for varied working arrangements (work alone or in groups). Here, he could team Luci 

or other students struggling with creating written products with more 

profi cient peers or he could create sub-groups of struggling students 

within the classroom and spend more instructional time with them.
61

When teachers make instructional modifi cations by differentiating 

in one of these three areas (Content, Products, Process), they are 

responding to student needs. Before they can differentiate, they 

must fi rst identify these needs through a data analysis process. In 

Chapters Three and Four, we explored different assessment methods 

teachers can use and different venues for providing feedback to students. In this chapter, we have emphasized reviewing the assessment 

data and analyzing it to determine students’ learning needs so that 

instructional modifi cations to meet those needs can be designed. 

With this chapter, we complete the Classroom Assessment Cycle. Our 

fi nal chapter provides further examples, showing the complete implementation of this cycle in science classes. At the end of this manual, 

you will also fi nd an Appendix that discusses ways of communicating 

assessment results to parents and students.

�����������

�����������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������
62

CHAPTER SIX

Implementing

the Cycle

This manual has introduced the Classroom Assessment Cycle as a 

means of enhancing student achievement. The Cycle prescribes a 

process that teachers can use to align their classroom assessments 

with research-based best practices. By implementing all four quadrants of the Classroom Assessment Cycle, teachers can:

1) Clarify science learning targets for their students.

2) Gather assessment evidence in a variety of ways and provide 

meaningful feedback to students on their academic progress 

in science.

3) Analyze assessment data to determine the learning needs of 

the students in science classes.

4) Modify science instruction to meet those learning needs. 

(See FIGURE 6.1.)

In this last chapter of the manual, we provide examples of science 

lessons that demonstrate how teachers at different levels may implement the Classroom Assessment Cycle. We think of these examples 

as snapshots from the classroom. They focus on only one day’s lesson, rather than on a complete unit. The examples provide descriptions of previous activities, detailed plans for today’s lesson, and 

a foreshadowing of tomorrow’s science class. By studying these 

examples, teachers may obtain a clearer idea of how the Classroom 

Assessment Cycle works on a day-to-day basis in the science classroom. Teachers may then feel prepared to design lessons (and eventually whole units) using this assessment approach.

The fi rst classroom snapshot is from Mr. Tighe’s third-grade class. The 

chart in FIGURE 6.2 categorizes the classroom activities into particular 

quadrants of the Classroom Assessment Cycle. This chart is followed 

by two FIGURES (6.3 and 6.4) that provide more information about the 

assessment and instruction in this classroom. Finally, FIGURE 6.5 provides 

a summary of the learning targets, assessments, feedback, data analysis, and instructional modifi cations found in this third-grade lesson.

FIGURE 6.1 

The Classroom 

Assessment 

Cycle

��������

�����������

�������

�����������

��������

���������

�������

�������

�����������

���������

�������

��������

�����������

����
63

FIGURE 6.2Elementary Level Implementation of the Classroom Assessment Cycle: Third Grade, Mr. Tighe’s Class

�������

�����������

��������

���������

�������

�������

�����������

���������

�������

��������

�����������

����

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

UNIT GOALS:“As a result of activities in grades K–4, all students should develop understandings of ❑ The characteristics of 

organisms

❑ Life cycles of organisms❑ Organisms and environment” 

(National Research Council, 1996, p. 127)

In addition, under the guide to the “abilities necessary to do scientifi c inquiry” (Content Standard A), students will❑ “Ask a question about objects, 

organisms, and events in the environment

❑ Use data to construct a 

reasonable explanation

❑ Communicate investigations 

and explanations” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 122)

DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT:Yesterday, Mr. Tighe asked students to list examples of living and nonliving things found in the classroom. In a class discussion, the following list resulted: Living❑ Mr. Tighe❑ Me (student)❑ Bug on windowsill❑ Potted plantNonliving❑ Pencil❑ Desk❑ Blackboard❑ Flag

DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS:Mr. Tighe concluded that students were able to differentiate living from nonliving things. No misconceptions were noted.

Mr. Tighe plans to build on student’s knowledge of living and nonliving things. He will challenge the students to not only classify items as living or nonliving, but ask them to synthesize a list of characteristics of living things. He will prompt this discussion by bringing in some examples to stimulate student thinking.
64

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

TODAY’S LESSON:SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES(kid-language):Students will❑ Use our eyes, ears, noses, 

and touch to learn about living things. We will NOT use our mouths to taste anything today.

❑ Make a list of ways “living” 

things are different from “nonliving” things.

❑ Share our lists and our 

reasoning with the whole class.

These specifi c objectives are aligned with the “characteristics of organisms” National Science Education Standard and with the “abilities necessary to do scientifi c inquiry” one.LEARNING TARGETS:Reasoning (Classifying objects (Classifying objects Reasoningas living, non-living; Synthesizing characteristics of living)Product (List of characteristics) (List of characteristics) ProductKnowledge (Characteristics of (Characteristics of Knowledgeliving, nonliving things)Process Skills (Observing) (Observing) Process Skills
65

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

Mr. Tighe orally shares today’s specifi c objectives with students, using kid language, and writes the objectives on the blackboard.

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:Mr. Tighe writes yesterday’s lists of living and nonliving things on the board and reads this list aloud to students. He asks students to think about this question: How are living things different from nonliving things? He asks students to form their discussion groups (previously organized for other lessons) and discuss this question. He reminds students to look for the star by their names (on the bulletin board, where members of the different discussion groups are listed) to fi nd out who is today’s reporter in the group.FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:Mr. Tighe circulates and observes the group discussions. He collects information on a data collection sheet. (See FIGURE 6.3)FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:Student groups present reports (constructed response—performance assessment) of the 

discussion. As groups provide a characteristic of living things, Mr. Tighe writes each characteristic on the board. 

Mr. Tighe sees that only six of the seven characteristics of life have been revealed in the group discussions. He knows that some groups thought of more characteristics than others. 

Mr. Tighe wants to help all the students in the class be able to list and understand all seven characteristics of life. He will use concrete examples to help students make connections between the words (breathing, moving, etc.) and the concept of seven characteristics of life.
CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

Mr. Tighe gives each discussion group a set of concrete examples (See FIGURE 6.4). These may be 

objects or pictures. He asks the students to decide which of the six characteristics on the board best matches the object/picture. He gives each student group a set of six cards labeled with the six identifi ed characteristics. His directions to the students are to group the objects/pictures under the correct card. He also asks students to look for one missing characteristic and gives them a blank card for this characteristic.FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:

Again, Mr. Tighe circulates and observes groups. He asks groups. He asks observes questionsto prompt student thinking as he circulates. He also responds to or initiates teacher/student dialogues

for this same purpose.He particularly questions the groups about objects/pictures intended to be examples of the seventh characteristic, but classifi ed by the students into other categories. Sample questions he asks: “How is this (object/picture) like the other ones in this category? How is it different? He also asks each group, “Did you fi nd a new category?”

While circulating, Mr. Tighe sees that students are confused because they think some of the objects/pictures can fi t into more than one category. The students are unable to progress until this issue is addressed.Mr. Tighe also notes that students are having diffi culty coming up with the seventh characteristic. Many groups are putting the sunfl owers under “movement.” One group has the picture of children and horses under “eating/drinking” and another has this picture under “growth.” Similarly, group three puts the drummer and girl picture under “growth” and group fi ve puts this under “movement.”

Mr. Tighe alerts the entire class to let them know that some objects/pictures fi t under more than one category. He asks the class how this should be handled. One student suggests that they could create a drawing of any objects/pictures that might be used as examples of more than one characteristic (effectively making a duplicate). Mr. Tighe accepts this idea, stating that he thinks having a duplicate is a good idea; he volunteers to take a Polaroid picture of the object/picture for groups who would prefer this method over drawing.Mr. Tighe probes student thinking through his questioning activities. For those groups having the most diffi culty, he uses a series of focusing questions to help them overcome obstacles. He to help them overcome obstacles. He questionsspends more time with some groups than with with some groups than with more timeothers.
67

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:Mr. Tighe asks students to orally present (constructed response—performance assessment) their 

classifi cations to the class and explain why they classifi ed particular objects under the headings. He facilitates a group discussion, leading to consensus on classifi cation. This is studentdriven and concludes without the seventh characteristic being discovered, as students simply place all the objects/pictures under one of the existing headings. Science time ends at this point.

Mr. Tighe knows that students still have not uncovered the seventh characteristic of life. He wants them to know this last characteristic (response to change) before beginning the next science lesson. One of the main objectives in the next lesson is to have students realize that for things to be classifi ed as “living,” they must display all seven characteristics of seven characteristics of alllife. He plans to bring in examples and ask students to tell him if these objects are living or nonliving (e.g., a wind-up toy). If students say this is non-living, Mr. Tighe will challenge them with a question: “But, this toy does move. Isn’t movement a characteristic of life?”Mr. Tighe cannot begin this new lesson, however, until students are cognizant of the “response to change” characteristic.

Since the examples given for the seventh characteristic of life, “response to change,” were not effective in soliciting this category from students, Mr. Tighe formulates a new plan. He searches the Internet and fi nds several sites showing video clips of animals reacting to stimuli (e.g., a frog catching a fl y by shooting out his tongue; a fl ock of ducks fl ying up all at once after hearing a loud sound; a dog tracking a scent). He decides to begin this lesson with a short class discussion. He formulates the following questions to ask the students:1) Think of the last time you were frightened. 

What frightened you? What did you do?

2) If you heard a very loud noise right now, 

show me what you would do.

3) Have you ever burned yourself on 

something hot? Act this out for me.

In answering the questions, Mr. Tighe hopes that one student will introduce the concept of cause and effect or “one action leading to another action.” Mr. Tighe will build on this and introduce “response” as a term. He will try to get students to understand that in every case, they are responding to a change in their environment. He will then show the video clips and ask students to identify both the change that occurred and the response. Finally, he will go back to the three problematic pictures (intended to show this in yesterday’s lesson) and ask students to identify changes and responses in them. He will add “respond to a change” to the characteristics of life list before beginning the next science lesson.
FIGURE 6.3 Mr. Tighe’s Data Collection Form

DISCUSSION 

GROUP

GROUP WAS OBSERVED DISCUSSING ONE OR MORE OF THE 

FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVING THINGS

Breathing Moving Reproducing Eating/Drinking Growing Excreting Responding to Change

1 X X X2 X X X X3 X X4 X X X X

FIGURE 6.4 List of Concrete Objects Distributed by Mr. Tighe to Student Discussion Groups

TO ILLUSTRATE...

Breathing Moving Reproducing Eating/Drinking Growing Excreting Responding to Change

GI Joe Frogman doll with scuba gear

Live ladybug in a jar

Stuffed toy: mother elephant and baby elephant with linked trunks

Stuffed toy: mother cat with six attached, nursing baby cats

Picture of children being measured for height

Betsy Wetsy-type doll, with bottle

Picture of girl beside drummer; girl has hands over ears

Picture of child frosting window with his breath

Picture of a cheetah, running

Picture of mother holding infant

Picture of contestants at a pie-eating contest

Picture of boy whose clothes are too small (pants too short, shirt too tight)

Plastic dog “poop” from joke shop

Pictures of sunfl owers pointing towards the sun (time lapse)

Picture of fi sh blowing bubbles underwater

Picture of children in a dance recital

Mother, father, boy, girl dolls

Betsy Wetsy-type doll with bottle

Pictures of quintuplets—at birth,at 1 year,at 7 years

Picture of dog urinating on man’s leg

Picture of children in fi eld with horse in summer beside picture of children in fi eld with horse in winter (horse’s coat is heavier, change in clothing for children)
69

FIGURE 6.5 Summary of Classroom Assessment Elements Found in Mr.Tighe’s Third-Grade Science Class

LEARNING TARGETS ASSESSMENTS FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS ASSESSMENT DATA ANALYZED INSTRUCTIONAL MODIFICATIONS

REASONING, KNOWLEDGE, PRODUCT❑ Classifying objects as 

living/nonliving

DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT

❑ Produce list of living and 

nonliving things

Written and oral feedback in the form of the compiled list that is shared with students, both orally and on the board.

List of living and nonliving things—no misconceptions, students were able to differentiate.

No remediation necessary. Mr. Tighe builds on this foundational knowledge.

REASONING, KNOWLEDGE, PROCESS SKILLS ❑ Observing concrete 

examples of living things

❑ Synthesizing characteristics 

of living things

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS

❑ Questioning (How are 

living things different from nonliving things? How is this object/picture like the other ones in this category? How is it different? Did you fi nd a new category?)

❑ Observations (Data 

collection form for group discussions; observations of student oral presentations)

❑ Teacher/Student Dialogues 

(Initiates conversations to prompt or focus student thinking)

Verbal Feedback from teacherVerbal Feedback from teacher and from peersVerbal feedback from teacher

Answers to questions given by students; Data collection form; Student oral presentation data

CONTENT DIFFERENTIATION❑ Provides concrete examples 

to help students discover seventh characteristic of life and to aid students in learning/understanding the six characteristics that were uncovered in the original discussion.

❑ Breaks down content into 

small “chunks” by asking probing questions.

❑ Uses video clips to present 

information.

PROCESS DIFFERENTIATION❑ Asks students to fi nd 

categories.

❑ Work in groups.❑ Solves problem of “more 

than one category” with student input.

❑ Spends more time, gives 

more individual attention to some groups.

PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION❑ Students express 

knowledge in a variety of ways (discussions, lists, oral presentations).
70

In Mr. Tighe’s classroom, the primary formative feedback mechanism 

was verbal feedback. The following middle school example from Mrs. 

Nagura’s seventh-grade science class (See FIGURE 6.6) also utilizes 

verbal feedback. However, in this example, written feedback in the 

form of quiz grades, comments on science journals, and rubrics is also 

present. Both examples incorporate diagnostic as well as formative 

assessments, use a variety of assessments and teaching methods, 

and emphasize the continuous analysis of assessment data to inform/

modify instruction. The middle school example, like the elementary 

one, is followed by a summary chart of the learning targets, assessments, feedback, data analysis, and instructional modifi cations used 

(See FIGURE 6.11).
71

FIGURE 6.6Middle School Level Implementation of the Classroom Assessment Cycle: Seventh Grade, Mrs. Nagura’s Class.

�������

�����������

��������

���������

�������

�������

�����������

���������

�������

��������

�����������

����

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

UNIT GOALS:“As a result of their activities in grades 5–8, all students should develop understanding of❑ Structure and function in living 

systems

❑ Reproduction and heredity❑ Regulation and behavior❑ Populations and ecosystems❑ Diversity and adaptations of 

organisms” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 155)

In addition, under the guide to “abilities necessary to do scientifi c inquiry” (Content Standard A), students will:❑ “Develop descriptions, 

explanations, predictions, and models using evidence

❑ Think critically and logically to 

make the relationships between evidence and explanations

❑ Communicate scientifi c procedures 

and explanations” (National Research Council, 1996, pp. 145–146)

DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT:1) Selected response assessment:

Vocabulary quiz on terms from text reading, including: recessive, dominant, monohybrid cross, dihybrid cross, chromosome, gene. Mrs. Nagura marks the quizzes, indicating incorrect answers by circling them and then returns the papers to students. 

DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS:The short-answer vocabulary quiz demonstrates that 22 of 26 students in the class can differentiate the associated terms (recessive from dominant, gene from chromosome, dihybrid from monohybrid crosses). The four students who had diffi culty on the quiz tended to answer that chromosomes were on genes rather than conversely and could not identify mono- from dihybrid crosses.

Mrs. Nagura will begin class today by showing the mapped genes on a human chromosome from the Human Genome project (teaching content in a new way). She will stress that genes ). She will stress that genes a new wayare small units of genetic information found on the chromosomes. She will then review mono- and dihybrid crosses by writing Punnet square examples (modeling, demonstrating) of each on the board ) of each on the board demonstrating(the class previously created Punnet squares for these two types of crosses in an earlier lesson). She will then give the students several gene pairs and ask them to create mono- and dihybrid crosses with these. Mrs. Nagura will circulate while students work on this, particularly visiting (and interacting with) those four with) those four interactingstudents identifi ed as having diffi culty in this area.
72

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

TODAY’S LESSON: SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES(kid-language):Students will:❑ Use the genetic information given, 

create and compare the offspring of two parents

❑ Investigate these offspring for 

genetic diversity (Are they all alike? If not, how are they different? How many different offspring can you find?)

❑ Report your fi ndings to the whole 

class

❑ Write an analysis of a cartoon in 

your science journal

These specifi c objectives are aligned with the “reproduction and heredity” National Science Education Standard and with the “abilities necessary to do scientifi c inquiry” one.LEARNING TARGETS:Reasoning (develop explanations, (develop explanations, Reasoningthink critically)Process skills (oral presentation) (oral presentation) Process skillsKnowledge (genetic information and (genetic information and Knowledgeits expression, the terms “genotype” and “phenotype”)Product (accurate model of offspring, (accurate model of offspring, Productjournal entry)

2) Constructed response—product 

assessment: Journal entry. Students Journal entry. Students assessment:

refl ect on the meaning of the cartoon. Explain this cartoon to someone who may not “get” it. (Cartoon shows a mom, dad, boy, and baby around the dining room table. The mom, dad, and baby all look alike, with sharp pointed chins, long, thin noses, wide lips, large ears, and round eyes. The boy does not have these characteristics. The caption of the cartoon shows the boy saying, “Mom, Dad, I failed genetics!”).

Mrs. Nagura distributes the Genetics Cartoon Analysis Rubric (See FIGURE 6.7) for students to use. She scores the cartoon journal entry with this rubric so that students can identify strengths and weaknesses in their performances.

Mrs. Nagura read through the journal entries to see if students uncovered the deeper meaning of the cartoon. She wants students to observe that the boy does not appear to share the same physical characteristics seen in the parents and the baby. She hopes students will realize that this is a natural occurrence and that this is NOT an example of “failing” genetics. She also would like to see some discussion of the mechanisms that create genetic diversity.After reading the journals, Mrs. Nagura decides that most students didn’t “get” the message. Most journal entries seemed to explain the cartoon by saying that the boy has failed his genetics class in school. Most students did not mention the different physical characteristics seen within the family. Only six students noticed this, and none of the six used recessive, dominant, linked, or unlinked genes (terms from the genetics chapter) in their explanations. They were more likely to simply state that “the boy doesn’t look like his parents or the baby.”

The analysis of the cartoon shows Mrs. Nagura that students do not yet have a deep understanding of how genetic diversity arises. She decides to use the cartoon again (as an ending refl ection) after today’s lesson to see if students’ explanations about the cartoon change before planning any instructional modifi cations.
73

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

Mrs. Nagura writes today’s specifi c objectives on the board and reviews these with the students. She uses “kid language” for the written objectives and in her explanations of these objectives.

Mrs. Nagura asks students to sit with their lab partners to form groups of two. She passes out the direction sheet for the activity and reviews this with the students. (See “Creating a Baby Creature” in FIGURE 6.8).

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:

Mrs. Nagura checks comprehension of the instructions by asking (questioning) students to express these in their own words. She checks to see if students understand the code by writing several codes on the board and asking (questioning) students what the baby having these codes would look like. She shows students models of the two parent Creatures, so they can see what an assembled Creature looks like. She quizzes students (questioning) on the materials to use in creating particular physical characteristics.

Through questioning, Mrs. Nagura 

fi nds that students are able to translate the genetic code into physical characteristics. They know what materials to use to create these characteristics.

No instructional modifi cations were needed for this portion of the lesson, based upon the analysis of questioning data. However, Mrs. Nagura circulates and observes (one-on-one interactions) the student groups while they make their Creatures. She checks with several groups to see if they are translating genotypes into phenotypes correctly.

Once all the Creatures have been placed in the playpen, Mrs. Nagura passes out the Discussion Sheet (See FIGURE 6.9). Student groups will discuss the questions on this sheet. One student will record the answers and the other student will report the answers to the class. The class may ask questions or make comments about the reports. Mrs. Nagura writes anecdotal notes while students are reporting.FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:Students record answers on the discussion sheet (constructed response-product assessment) and 

present their fi ndings to the class (constructed response-performance assessment).

Mrs. Nagura listens to the group reports and to the student comments. From this information, she concludes:1) Students found no two baby 

Creatures that were exactly alike. Students were impressed with the level of diversity found.

2) Most student groups reported that 

the number of phenotypes would equal the number of genotypes, which is inaccurate.

3) Students found that the 

chromosomes they discarded would have made a baby that looked different from the one they actually constructed.

Mrs. Nagura brings the class into a whole-group session. She displays an overhead transparency of the decoding chart found in Figure 6.8 and draws students’ attention to those genotypes that code for the same phenotype (DD and Dd; EE and Ee; FF and Ff; GG and Gg). She asks students to count the number of different genotypes listed on this chart (there are 21). She then asks them to count the number of different phenotypes (there are 17) on this chart (teaching content in a new way; asking students to fi nd patterns). Mrs. Nagura then refers back to question 4 on the Discussion sheet. “In this case, are there more genotypes possible, more phenotypes, or the same?” she asks. Since students 
74

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

Students receive verbal feedback from the teacher and from peers on their answers. This feedback is also selfassessment, as students can check their own answers against those from other groups. Hearing others’ ideas can stimulate deeper thinking.

4) Students explained that Creatures 

only have 14 chromosomes and that they get one from each parent. So, the reduction is needed to be sure that baby Creatures don’t get too many chromosomes.

5) There appears to be controversy 

on the linked chromosomes question—student answers varied greatly and students had a tough time justifying their answers to others.

These observations tell Mrs. Nagura that she must fi nd ways to help students understand 1) that if two different gene 

combinations result in the same physical trait (as EE and Ee both result in two eyes), then the number of phenotypes will be less than the number of genotypes 

2) how linked genes decrease the 

potential for genetic diversity 

just counted them, they are able to answer that there are more genotypes than phenotypes. Mrs. Nagura asks a student to put what they just observed in his own words (using “kid language”

and actively involving students in the learning process). He answers, “Because two different genotypes make the Creature look the same way, there are less phenotypes than genotypes.”To help students understand the linked genes, Mrs. Nagura demonstrates two sets of genes— two sets of genes— demonstrateslinked and unlinked. See FIGURE 6.10to see the fi gures she presents. She shows the linked genes physically joined to one another (using a concrete model), so that A can only be with B and “a” can only be with “b” (can’t have aB or Ab). She then works through the Punnet Squares of the two sample (linked and unlinked) crosses (modeling). She lists the different phenotypes that would arise in each type and cross and shows (use of concrete example, demonstration) students how linkages between genes cuts down on the number of phenotypes possible.
75

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

Mrs. Nagura displays the mother and father Creatures to the class. She asks the class to compare the children to these parents.FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT: 

Mrs. Nagura asks (questioning) stu- questioning

dents, “Is it possible for two parents to have a child that does not look exactly like either parent? Is it possible for the same two parents to have another child, again that does not look exactly like either parent and also doesn’t look exactly like the fi rst child?” She then asks, “Based upon your observations in this activity, would you say having two children who both look different from their parents and different from each other is OK or did something go wrong? Is it OK for one child to look similar (but not exactly like) one or both parents and the other to look nothing like either parent? Would this be a natural occurrence, or would something have to go wrong for this to occur?”Once students discuss these questions (verbal feedback from peers and teacher) and arrive at a consensus ) and

arrive

at a

c

onsensus teacher

(both situations are “OK” and could naturally occur, just as they did with the Creatures), Mrs. Nagura gives the fi nal assignment of the day. She puts up the same cartoon from yesterday and asks students to observe the family closely and then to write (constructed responseproduct assessment) an analysis of the cartoon in their journals. Again, students receive feedback via the Genetics Cartoon Analysis Rubric. Mrs. Nagura reminds students to examine the assessment of their fi rst analysis before beginning to write this one. She encourages them to use the rubric comments to improve their performance.

Mrs. Nagura reads the new (second) journal entries about the cartoon. She fi nds that all but 3 students now perceive that the boy does not look like his parents or the baby. All students except these three are able to articulate that this is a natural occurrence. 75% of the students use the term “unlinked genes” to help explain the diversity that might arise. Mrs. Nagura feels that the majority of the class now has a better understanding of how linkages between genes reduce the genetic diversity. 

Tomorrow, Mrs. Nagura plans to introduce a sex-linked trait, colorblindness. She will have the students list all the possible genotypes and phenotypes for offspring, given the genotypes of the parents. She will circulate while students work on this problem, and she will provide individual assistance to those to those individual assistancestudents who either did not “get” yesterday’s cartoon or did not use “unlinked gene” as part of their explanations of the cartoon. By using probing questions, she hopes to lead students to an understanding that linkages reduce diversity of phenotypes.

This lesson was adapted from ideas found in: Soderberg, P. (November, 1992). Marshmallow meiosis. The Science Teacher, pp. 28–31.
76

FIGURE 6.7 Genetics Cartoon Analysis Rubric

CRITERIA EXCELLENT ADEQUATE POOR

SUMMARYJournal entry accurately summarizes the event taking place in the cartoon, including all key elements so that a reader could create a “mind picture” of the cartoon from the summary. Entry summarizes the event in the cartoon, but some details are missing/ inaccurate. Reader could get a partial “mind picture” of the cartoon. Summary is missing or so incomplete that a reader would have trouble creating a “mind picture” of the cartoon.INTERPRETATIONJournal entry identifi es symbols, metaphors, and/or representations used in the cartoon and explains what these objects stand for. Entry explains why the cartoon’s creator chose these particular symbols, metaphors, or representation. Journal entry identifi es symbols, metaphors, and representations used by the creator, but fails to explain what these stand for. Entry attempts to explain why these objects were chosen, but explanation is occasionally inaccurate or incomplete. Interpretation of symbols is missing or incomplete. Entry does not attempt to explain why the creator included particular objects in the cartoon.ANALYSIS

The entry correctly identifi es the underlying meaning of the cartoon and provides at least three supporting details from the cartoon to support this meaning. The explanation of the meaning accurately uses scientifi c terms from the chapter on genetics in the text.

The entry identifi es a possible meaning, but provides only 1–2 supporting details. 

Entry lists a possible meaning, but does not give any supporting details to support this meaning.
77

Names of Group Members: 

1) Each student group will receive a packet of chromosomes. The yellow chromosomes 

belong to Mom Creature and the black chromosomes belong to Dad Creature. 

2) Notice that the chromosomes appear to be of different lengths and that each 

chromosome is labeled with a letter.

3) Lay all the chromosomes face down (so the letter is hidden) on the table. Sort them 

into same size groups (each same size group should contain four chromosomes 

(two yellow and two black).

4) Choose one yellow chromosome and one black chromosome from each same 

size group. Leave the chosen chromosomes on the table. Put the remainder of the 

chromosomes back in the packet and put these aside.

5) Chromosomal analysis on the Creatures has shown that each chromosome contains only one gene. This one gene codes for a particular trait. The attached chart 

shows you the genetic code (genotype) for each trait beside the physical description (phenotype) of this trait. You will use this code to create your Creature offspring:

GENOTYPE PHENOTYPE MATERIALS USED

TO CREATE THIS TRAIT

AA 1 antenna 1 small nail

Aa 2 antenna 2 small nails

aa No antenna

BB 1 yellow hump on back 1 yellow mini-marshmallow

Bb 2 yellow humps on back 2 yellow mini-marshmallows

bb 3 yellow humps on back 3 yellow mini-marshmallows

CC Green nose 1 green mini-marshmallow

Cc Yellow nose 1 yellow mini-marshmallow

cc Pink nose 1 pink mini-marshmallow

DD or Dd Curly tail 1 pipe cleaner, curled

dd Straight tail 1 pipe cleaner, not curled

EE or Ee 2 eyes 2 thumbtacks

ee 3 eyes 3 thumbtacks

FF or Ff 4 blue legs 4 blue push pins

ff 4 red legs 4 red push pins

GG or Gg 3 body segments 3 large marshmallows

gg 2 body segments 2 large marshmallows

FIGURE 6.8

Creating a Baby Creature
78

6) Turn your mixed black and yellow chromosomes over and write down the codes 

you fi nd here.

7) Use the chart above to convert the genotype (the two letters) into the phenotype (what the baby will look like). Gather the materials you need and assemble 

your baby Creature. You may use some toothpicks to hold your baby together. 

The toothpicks should be hidden, not visible when your baby Creature is fi nished. 

(Think of the toothpicks as bones.)

8) Write the names of the two members of your group on a piece of paper. Put this 

piece of paper in the Creature playpen (at the front of the room on the teacher’s 

desk) and place your baby Creature on this paper. This piece of paper serves to 

identify your baby Creature.

1. How many baby Creatures were constructed in today’s class?

2. How many were exactly alike (identical twins)?

3. How many were different (in at least one way) from all the others?

4. If there are 21 different genotypes possible for the baby Creature, are there the 

same number, more, or fewer phenotypes that are possible? Explain your answer.

5. You started this activity with 28 chromosomes (14 from Mom and 14 from Dad). 

You discarded 14 chromosomes (7 from Mom and 7 from Dad). Look at the chromosomes you discarded. If you had made your baby Creature using these chromosomes, would it have looked the same as the one you actually made? Explain 

your answer.

6. Why was it necessary to reduce the number of chromosomes (from the original 

28 chromosomes to only 14) before creating your baby Creature? Explain. (In 

genetics, this “reducing” process is known as meiosis.)

7. Select the A (A or a) yellow chromosomes you used to create your baby 

Creature. Tape the yellow B (B or b) to the bottom of this chromosome. Do the 

same to your A (A or a) and B (B or b) black chromosomes. The A and G chromosomes are now linked together. How might this affect the genetic diversity? 

(Increase it? Decrease it? Why?)

FIGURE 6.9

Discussion Sheet for Creating a Baby Creature
79

PUNNET SQUARE OF 

DIHYBRID CROSS—

UNLINKED GENES

DAD’S POSSIBLE

GENOTYPES

AB Ab aB ab

MOM’S 

POSSIBLE 

GENOTYPES

AB 1) AABB 2) AABb 3) AaBB 4) AaBb

Ab 2) AABb 5) AAbb 4) AaBb 6) Aabb

aB 3) AaBB 4) AaBb 7) aaBB 8) aaBb

ab 4) AaBb 6) Aabb 8) aaBb 9) aabb

Offspring’s genotypes are shown in shaded squares. Numbers indicate different 

phenotypes shown below. If same number appears beside two genotypes, they 

code for the same phenotype.

9 Possible Phenotypes for Baby Creature

1) Baby’s genotype is AABB, so baby has 1 antenna, 1 yellow hump

2) Baby’s genotype is AABb, so baby has 1 antenna, 2 yellow humps

3) Baby’s genotype is AaBB, so baby has 2 antenna, 1 yellow hump

4) Baby’s genotype is AaBb, so baby has 2 antenna, 2 yellow humps

5) Baby’s genotype is AAbb, so baby has 1 antenna, 3 yellow humps

6) Baby’s genotype is Aabb, so baby has 2 antenna, 3 yellow humps

7) Baby’s genotype is aaBB, so baby has no antenna, 1 yellow hump

8) Baby’s genotype is aaBb, so baby has no antenna, 2 yellow humps

9) Baby’s genotype is aabb, so baby has no antenna, 3 yellow humps

�������������������������� ��������������������������

� � � � � � � �

������������������������

��

��

��

��

��������������������������

��

��

��

��

FIGURE 6.10

Linked and Unlinked Genes
80

FIGURE 6.10

Linked and Unlinked Genes (continued)

PUNNET SQUARE OF 

DIHYBRID CROSS—

LINKED GENES

DAD’S POSSIBLE

GENOTYPES

AB ab

MOM’S POSSIBLE 

GENOTYPES

AB 1) AABB 2) AaBb

ab 2) AaBb 3) aabb

Offspring’s genotypes are shown in shaded squares. Numbers indicate different 

phenotypes shown below. If same number appears beside two genotypes, they 

code for the same phenotype.

3 Possible Phenotypes for Baby Creature

1) Baby’s genotype is AABB, so baby has 1 antenna, 1 yellow hump

2) Baby’s genotype is AaBb, so baby has 2 antenna, 2 yellow humps

2) Baby’s genotype is aabb, so baby has no antenna, 3 yellow humps

�������������������������� ��������������������������

�� �� �� ��

������������������������

��

��

��������������������������

��

��
81

FIGURE 6.11Summary of Classroom Assessment Elements Found in Mrs. Nagura’s Seventh-Grade Science Class

LEARNING TARGETS ASSESSMENTS FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS ASSESSMENT DATA ANALYZED INSTRUCTIONAL MODIFICATIONS

REASONING, KNOWLEDGE, PRODUCT❑ Demonstrate knowledge 

of scientifi c terms on vocabulary quiz

❑ Analyze genetics cartoon

DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT

❑ Vocabulary quiz❑ Cartoon analysis

Written feedback on quiz: wrong answers circledWritten feedback on cartoon, using Genetics Cartoon Analysis Rubric

Answers to questions on vocabulary quiz; student analyses of cartoon

CONTENT DIFFERENTIATION❑ Teach content in a new 

way, use pictorial content (visual from Human Genome Project)

❑ Model, demonstratePROCESS DIFFERENTIATION❑ Individualized attention 

(visiting and interacting with students while circulating)

PRODUCT❑ Create a model of the 

baby Creature

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS

❑ Questioning (Asks 

comprehension questions about directions and materials to use and about translating the code into physical characteristics)

Verbal feedback from teacher

Answers to questions given by students 

CONTENT DIFFERENTIATION❑ Provides concrete 

examples to help see what a model looks like (shows Mom and Dad Creatures)

❑ Breaks down content into 

small “chunks” by asking comprehension questions

PROCESS DIFFERENTIATION❑ Asks students for fi nd 

patterns (practice in translating the code)

❑ Asks students to express 

ideas in own words (kid language)

❑ Individualized attention 

(visiting and interacting with students while circulating)
82

LEARNING TARGETS ASSESSMENTS FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS ASSESSMENT DATA ANALYZED INSTRUCTIONAL MODIFICATIONS

REASONING, PROCESS SKILLS❑ Develop explanations, 

think critically (Discussion Sheet)

❑ Make oral reports of 

answers to discussion questions

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS❑ Constructed response—

product assessment (written questions on Discussion Sheet)

❑ Constructed response—

performance assessment (oral reporting)

❑ Teacher Observation 

(observes, listens to student performances during oral reporting)

Verbal feedback from teacher and peers

Answers to questions given by students; anecdotal notes taken by Mrs. Nagura

CONTENT DIFFERENTIATION❑ Teaching content in a new 

way, asking students to fi nd patterns (examining genotypes that code for same phenotype)

❑ Model, demonstrate 

(works through sample Punnet Squares)

❑ Provides concrete model 

(linked genes)

PROCESS DIFFERENTIATION❑ Using “kid language” and 

actively involving students (having students put ideas in their own words)

❑ Students express 

knowledge in a variety of ways (class discussions, written answers to Discussion Sheet questions, oral presentations)
83

LEARNING TARGETS ASSESSMENTS FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS ASSESSMENT DATA ANALYZED INSTRUCTIONAL MODIFICATIONS

REASONING❑ Genetics Cartoon analysis

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS❑ Questioning (“Is it possible 

for two parents to have a child that does not look exactly like either parent? Is it possible for the same two parents to have another child, again that does not look exactly like either parent and also doesn’t look exactly like the fi rst child?”, etc.

❑ Constructed response—

product assessment (analysis paragraph written in journal)

❑ Self-assessment (examine 

own past performance using rubric scores, plan how to improve scores in this assignment)

Verbal feedback from peers and teacherGenetics Cartoon Analysis Rubric

Second analyses of cartoon

PROCESS DIFFERENTIATION❑ Ask students to fi nd 

patterns, categories (list all possible genotypes and phenotypes)

❑ Individualized attention

The last exemplar in this manual provides a snapshot of a high school Biology class (SEE FIGURE 6.12). Mrs. Green is the teacher. Her students have been working on a problem-based unit concerning conjoined twins. In the example below, rubrics are the primary feedback mechanisms. As with the other samples, this high school snapshot ends with a summary of the learning targets, assessments, feedback, data analysis, and instructional modifi cations used (SEE FIGURE 6.16).
84

FIGURE 6.12High School Level Implementation of the Classroom Assessment Cycle: Tenth Grade, Mrs. Green’s Class

�������

�����������

��������

���������

�������

�������

�����������

���������

�������

��������

�����������

����

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

UNIT GOALS:“As a result of activities in grades 9–12, all students should develop understanding of❑ Personal and community health❑ Population growth❑ Natural resources❑ Environmental quality❑ Natural and human-induced 

hazards

❑ Science and technology in local, 

national, and global challenges” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 193)

In addition, under the guide to “abilities necessary to do scientifi c inquiry,” (Content Standard A), students will❑ “Recognize and analyze alternative explanations and models❑ Communicate and defend a scientifi c argument” (National Research 

Council, 1996, pp. 175–176).

Today’s lesson comes at the end of a 10-day, problem-based learning experience. On the fi rst day of this experience, students were presented with a real-life problem in the form of a memo from a hospital chief executive offi cer to the hospital administrator. (See FIGURE 6.13 for a copy of this 

memo.) This is the fi rst problem-based experience for the students. They are working in groups of four. Each group of four is assigned a particular role to play (the group may all be medical staff, or all accountants, etc.).FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS

Students were asked to write a problem statement (put the problem in their own words); construct “Know” and “Need to Know” lists; conduct research to answer “Need to Know” questions; and prepare a solution to the problem. As students completed each product, she asked them to post the products on chart paper around the room. Students read all the other products and then discussed strengths and weaknesses displayed (peer review; self-assesssment). 

Mrs. Green read the problem statements written by the students and noticed that many students simply jumped into planning how to separate the twins. They missed the part of the memo that states “consider the feasibility” of this undertaking. The problem is designed to have students consider alternatives and ethics, not to have them debate biology (anatomical structures). Therefore, re-focusing the students on the feasibility aspect was necessary for the learning targets to be addressed.

Mrs. Green had students share their problem statements. Through peer review, the problems were refi ned and re-focused on the “feasibility” of the undertaking, rather than on “how to” separate the twins.Mrs. Green provided sample, exemplary products (problem statements, Know and Need to Know Lists) constructed by students from past years working on a different problem (written exemplars).
85

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

TODAY’S LESSON: SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES(kid-language) Students will❑ Make oral presentations on the 

conjoined twin problem (See the rubric for this presentation in FIGURE 6.14)

❑ Evaluate all proposed solutions 

and select or formulate the “best” solution. Justify reasons this would be the “best.” (See the directions for this justifi cation in FIGURE 6.15.)

Mrs. Green also wrote comments or suggestions on the products (written 

feedback). Students were given the opportunity to improve their own products after this discussion.

These specifi c objectives are aligned with the “Science and technology in local, national, and global challenges” portions of Content Standard F (above) as well as with the “abilities necessary to do scientifi c inquiry” one.LEARNING TARGETSKnowledge (scientifi c background knowledge is necessary for students to choose best solution)Reasoning (students evaluate, justify) (students evaluate, justify) ReasoningProcess Skills (oral presentation) (oral presentation) Process SkillsProduct (justifi cation paragraph) (justification paragraph) ProductMrs. Green displays today’s objectives on the overhead projector screen and reviews these with students at the beginning of class.

Today, students will make oral presentations (constructed response—performance assessment) 

of their proposed solutions. Students will receive feedback on their performances via an oral presentation rubric scored by the teacher and by the other student groups. Since there are fi ve student groups, each group will receive four rubrics scored by student groups and one rubric scored by the teacher.

Mrs. Green notes that the student groups are actually giving lower scores on the rubrics than she is giving. There is consistency (interrater reliability), however, between the dimensions she scored the lowest and the ones the students scored the lowest. The two dimensions earning the lowest scores are teamwork and content organization.

Mrs. Green will present her analysis to the class and let them know that teamwork and content organization generally received the lowest scores. She will ask students to brainstorm ways that these areas can be improved. Working with the students, she will create a list of strategies students can use to enhance scores in these areas.
86

CLARIFY

LEARNING TARGETS

GATHER EVIDENCE

IN A VARIETY OF WAYS

ANALYZE

ASSESSMENT DATA

MODIFY

INSTRUCTION

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTSAfter all groups have presented, Mrs. Green helps students make a list of all proposed solutions to the problem. She posts this list on the overhead. Mrs. Green then asks (questioning) 

students to select the ONE best solution and justify the selection of this solution. She hands out the directions for the activity (See FIGURE 6.15), 

reviews the directions with the students, and explains the rubric (written feedback) for the assignment. Students are given the opportunity to ask questions about the rubric. Students are given a sample of student work from a previous class, and they score this sample work (peer 

review) with the Justifi cation rubric. ) with the Justification rubric. reviewMrs. Green facilitates a class discussion (teacher/student dialogues) to reach consensus on the rubric scores for the exemplar. She asks (questioning) students to explain their scores.

After reading through the student papers for the justifi cation assignment, Mrs. Green fi nds that students have diffi culty articulating four pro and four con statements as well as diffi culty identifying possible consequences of solution implementation.

Tomorrow, Mrs. Green will ask students to form groups of two. Each student in the group will review the other’s justifi cation assignment, score it with the rubric, and make suggestions for improving it. The suggestions must refer to the dimensions found on the justifi cation rubric. Students will then be given an opportunity to revise their assignment. After this revision, students will hand in the assignment and Mrs. Green will score it with the rubric as well as writing comments on the papers.
87

FIGURE 6.13

Problem Presentation: Hospital Memo

Inter-Offi ce Memorandum

To: Dr. Kay Emko

 Hospital Administrator

From: Dr. Jim Reed

 Chief Executive Offi ce

Date: Nov. 14, 2005

Re: Smith conjoined twins

As you know, Dr. M.E. Seay has contacted this offi ce about the possibility of 

performing separation surgery on conjoined twins. These twins, born in Romania, 

were adopted this month by Wilbur and Darlene Smith. I am forwarding to you 

an anatomical schematic, provided by Dr. Seay, which shows the body structures 

shared by the twins. Please assemble a planning team, which will include medical 

staff, accountants, legal experts, hospital facility (physical plant) representative, and 

counselors to consider the feasibility of the hospital pursuing this undertaking.

The hospital board will meet on Nov. 23, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. I would like for your 

team to present its recommendations at this meeting.

The attached anatomical schematic shows the following:

• The twins are two children above the waist and one below

• 1 rib cage

• 1 liver

• 2 gall bladders

• 1 large intestine

• 1 small intestine

• 1 pair of ovaries

• 1 pelvis

• 1 vagina

• 1 urethra

• 2 spinal cords that fuse at the base

• 3 or 4 lungs

• 2 hearts with a common bloodstream

• 2 stomachs

• 1 right kidney

• 2 left kidneys

• 1 uterus

• 1 bladder
88

FIGURE 6.14

Rubric for Conjoined Twins Oral Presentation by a Student Group

CRITERIA EXCELLENT ADEQUATE POOR DELIVERY

Relaxed, self-confi dent, 

and appropriately dressed 

for purpose or audience; 

builds trust and holds 

attention by direct eye 

contact with all parts of 

the audience; fl uctuations 

in volume and infl ection 

help to maintain audience 

interest and emphasize key 

points.

Quick recovery from 

minor mistakes, but some 

tension or indifference 

apparent; appropriately 

dressed; occasional but 

unsustained use of eye 

contact with audience; 

uneven volume; variation 

in infl ection is present, 

but not consistently 

implemented.

Nervous tension obvious; 

inappropriately dressed; 

no effort to make eye 

contact with audience; 

low volume and/or 

monotonous tone causes 

audience to disengage.

INTRODUCTION

Effectively captures 

interest/attention of 

the audience; lays out 

plan and sequence of 

presentation; informs 

audience of group role.

Lays out plan and 

sequence of the 

presentation, but no 

attention-getting “hook” is 

present, informs audience 

of group role.

Introduction is missing—

no plan for the presentation is given. Group role not 

identifi ed.

CONTENT 

ORGANIZATION

Shares the group’s problem 

statement, explains why 

the group chose this 

statement; proposes a 

solution to the problem, 

explains rationale for 

the solution, justifi es why 

solution is sound and 

workable.

Shares problem statement; 

proposes a solution; 

justifi es the solution.

Problem statement is 

missing; group proposes a 

solution but fails to justify 

why it is a sound and 

workable solution.

COMPREHENSION

Understood problem well 

enough to answer questions posed by audience; 

provided quality answers 

to question—answers were 

based in facts, clearly 

related to question asked, 

and provided audience 

with needed information.

Attempted to answer 

questions, but answers 

were of less quality—

occasionally facts 

were misrepresented or 

inaccurate.

Unable to provide answers 

to audience questions.

TEAMWORK

Each member of team 

provides an overview 

of his/her contributions 

to the solution of the 

problem; each team 

member speaks during 

the presentation; all team 

members fi eld questions at 

the end from the audience.

Each team member speaks 

during the presentation; 

presentation provides 

evidence that most team 

members contributed to 

the solution.

Not all team members 

speak during the presentation; contributions of individual team members not 

addressed. 

QUALITY OF SOLUTION

Solution aligns with problem statement (actually 

solves the problem presented); solution addresses 

all constraints listed in original problem statement; 

solution is authentic to 

group’s role; solution honors deadline and budget; 

solution is feasible within 

the time frame given in the 

problem and is completely 

supported by research.

Solution aligns with 

problem statement; 

solution addresses most of 

the constraints; solution is 

authentic to group’s role; 

solution honors deadline 

and budget; solution is 

partially supported by 

research.

Solution fails to align with 

problem statement; fails 

to address majority of 

constraints; solution is 

not authentic to group’s 

role; solution fails to honor 

either the given deadline 

or budget; research 

support for the solution is 

missing.
89

FIGURE 6.15

Directions for Justifi cation

1) From all the solutions proposed today, select the two “best” solutions. Briefl y describe 

these solutions.

2) Construct a “pro” and “con” chart for each of these two proposed solutions.

3) List positive and negative consequences of implementing each solution.

4) Write a paragraph, stating the one “best” solution and explain your rationale for 

choosing this one over the other one.

5) Use the following rubric to maximize your performance on this justifi cation task.

CRITERIA GOOD ADEQUATE POOR SOLUTION SELECTION

Solutions are selected 

from those presented 

today; solution 

descriptions are 

accurate, complete, and 

clear.

Solutions are selected 

from those presented 

today, solution 

descriptions are 

accurate, but may be 

incomplete or lacking in 

clarity.

Solutions are selected 

from those presented 

today, but descriptions 

are missing or hard to 

understand (insuffi cient 

detail is given to check 

accuracy of solution 

description).

PRO/CON 

CHART

At least four “pro” and 

four “con” statements 

are listed for each 

of the two proposed 

solutions; “pros” and 

“cons” accurately refl ect 

implementation issues

At least three accurate 

“pro” and three accurate 

“con” statements are 

listed for each of the two 

proposed solutions..

Less than three accurate 

“pro” and three accurate 

“con” statements are 

listed for each of the two 

proposed solutions.

CONSEQUENCES

At least two positive and 

two negative outcomes 

(consequences) of 

implementing each of 

the two solutions is listed 

and explained.

At least two positive and 

two negative outcomes 

of implementing each of 

the two solutions is listed.

Less than two positive and 

two negative outcomes 

of implementing each of 

the two solutions is listed.

JUSTIFICATION 

PARAGRAPH

Paragraph clearly 

identifi es and explains 

the “best” solution; 

student provides at least 

three viable reasons for 

choosing this solution 

over the other. Paragraph 

contains no grammatical 

errors.

Paragraph clearly 

identifi es and explains 

the “best” solution; 

student provides at least 

two viable reasons for 

choosing this solution 

over the other. Paragraph 

contains no more than 

two grammatical errors.

Paragraph identifi es the 

“best” solution, but fails to 

explain it. Less than two 

viable reasons are given 

for choosing this solution 

over the other. Paragraph 

contains more than two 

grammatical errors.
90

FIGURE 6.16Summary of Classroom Assessment Elements Found in Mrs. Green’s Tenth-Grade Biology Class

LEARNING TARGETS ASSESSMENTS FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS ASSESSMENT DATA ANALYZED INSTRUCTIONAL MODIFICATIONS

PRODUCT❑ Creating problem 

statements, “Know” and “Need to Know” lists

REASONING❑ Conducting research to 

answer “Need to Know” questions

❑ Peer and self-assessment 

(students examined others’ products and discussed strengths and weaknesses of these and of their own products)

❑ Constructed response—

product assessment (creation of the products)

Verbal feedback from peers and teacherWritten feedback from teacher in the form of comments

Student products CONTENT DIFFERENTIATION

❑ Provide concrete 

examples (sample products from previous classes)

PROCESS DIFFERENTIATION❑ Peer review of products 

(problem statements, “Know” and “Need to Know” lists)

KNOWLEDGE, REASONING, PROCESS SKILLS, PRODUCT❑ Compiling scientifi c 

background knowledge

❑ Using background 

knowledge to evaluate proposed solutions to the problem

❑ Justifying choice of “best” 

solution

❑ Making oral presentation❑ Creating justifi cation 

paragraph

❑ Constructed response—

performance assessment (oral presentations)

❑ Questioning (Select one 

best solution)

❑ Teacher/Student 

dialogues (class discussions)

❑ Constructed response—

product assessment (justifi cation assignment)

Written feedback via rubric scored by peers and teacherVerbal feedback from teacher, written feedback via rubricVerbal feedback from teacherWritten feedback via rubric and teacher comments

Rubric scores; student products

CONTENT DIFFERENTIATION❑ Breaks down content into 

small “chunks” by listing all proposed solutions

PROCESS DIFFERENTIATION❑ Peer review of products 

and performances (oral presentation, justifi cation assignment)

❑ Ask students to make 

and justify judgments (justifi cation assignment)

PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION❑ Students express 

knowledge in a variety of ways (discussions, oral presentations, justifi cation assignment)
91

APPENDIX

The examples in Chapter 6 provided insights into ways teachers 

implement the Classroom Assessment Cycle to enhance student performance in science. The focus was on formative assessment (assessments that provide feedback to students while they are learning.) 

Therefore, the classroom snapshots did not address grading issues. For 

an overview of productive grading practices, you may wish to read 

the Appendix below.

Appendix: Grading and Reporting Student 

Performance in Science

In Chapter Five, we examined methods to use for analyzing assessment data and then various means for modifying instruction based 

upon such analyses. In this chapter, we will concentrate on ways 

to provide meaningful performance reports to both students and 

parents. In order to offer such meaningful reports, we must fi rst 

review the three purposes of assessment: Diagnostic, Formative, and 

Summative.

These three terms were fi rst introduced in Chapter Four. The defi nitions 

for the terms were:

Diagnostic Assessments: Used to ascertain the current level of 

understanding that students possess about a concept prior to 

instruction. 

Formative Assessments: Formative Assessments: Used to provide feedback to students Used to provide feedback to students

as they progress toward a learning goal, during the learning 

process.

Summative Assessments: Summative Assessments: Used to rate the profi ciency of students Used to rate the proficiency of students 

relative to a particular skill or skill set at the end of instruction.

Diagnostic assessments are primarily used by teachers to aid in planning meaningful instruction. While the results of such assessments 

may be shared with students or parents, it is usually the case that 

teachers alone review these results. Students, however, are the primary audience for reports of formative assessments, information that 

is often communicated to them through the use of verbal feedback, 

written feedback or rubrics. Through such feedback mechanisms, 

students come to understand their strengths and weaknesses. Of 

course, the results of such formative assessments may also be shared 

with parents. Summative assessment reports, those coming at the 

end of a grading period, are usually more formal than formative 

ones, and they are distributed in a format usually chosen by the district or county educational agency. This agency may also prescribe 

the frequency of such reporting (as every three, six, and nine weeks, 

etc.). Summative grades are those grades that we fi nd on students’ 

report cards.

In this appendix, we shift our focus from formative feedback or “scoring” to “grading” (summative feedback). We will consider how to 

enhance the reliability of summative grades found on student report 

cards, and we will examine methods of calculating such grades. 

Finally, we will look at a grade book format that supports productive 

grading plans. 
92

Grade Reliability 

Grades are reliable when they give an accurate picture of student 

achievement relative to a learning target or standard. Brookhart 

(2004, p.10) describes this as:

The grade students get for an assignment should be the 

closest possible estimate you can make about their real 

achievement on whatever the assignment is supposed to 

measure. It shouldn’t be a fl uke—a low score underestimating achievement because a student was ill, or a high score 

overestimating achievement because the student made a 

lucky guess studying only the one question you happened to 

pick for a test. It shouldn’t be an accident of which teacher 

grades the paper—a “hard grader” or an “easy grader.” 

The grade should indicate the level at which students would 

generally register on any assignments designed to indicate 

achievement of the same learning goals.

In this quote, Brookhart emphasizes two important components of 

grades: accuracy and consistency. Like other assessment experts, 

(O’Connor, 1999 & 2002; Marzano, 2000; Stiggins, 1993; Gusky, 2004), 

Brookhart insists that grades should be a measure of student achievement relative to some standard. If we accept this grading defi nition, 

then grades should not include such non-academic factors as attendance, conduct, cooperation, ability, or attitude. O’Connor (1999) 

suggests that such non-academic factors be recorded and reported 

separately.

In addition to basing summative grades on academic performance, 

four other factors highly impact grading accuracy and consistency. 

These are:

1) Which assignments are “counted.” 

2) How much these assignments count (weighting). 

3) The statistical method used to calculate fi nal grades.

4) The use of zeros.

What Counts?

To decide which grades should “count,” (that is, which assignment 

grades will be used to create the summative, report card grade), 

we must fi rst return to the three purposes of assessment: diagnostic, 

formative, and summative. Should grades on diagnostic assignments 

be used to fi gure fi nal grades? Most teachers would answer “no” to 

this question. Diagnostic assignments are given prior to any instruction. They are simply the measure of what a student already knows 

about a concept or subject. The purpose of diagnostic assessments 

is to plan appropriate teaching. We use diagnostics to prevent overdwelling on concepts that students already understand and to focus 

our instruction on possible misconceptions and/or perceived weaknesses in student understanding. Diagnostic assessment results are 

not usually used in calculating summative grades.

The use of formative scores is more problematic, however. Even 

though, by defi nition, formative scores are taken while students are 

still forming forming their understandings of concepts, teachers routinely their understandings of concepts, teachers routinely

record these scores as grades and then use them to calculate overall, fi nal grades for the report card. Whether this results in accurate, 
93

consistent grades generally depends on where a particular student 

is located on the learning curve when the grade is assigned. If the 

student has had time to understand the concept presented and has 

been afforded suffi cient practice time, then the grade may accurately refl ect student achievement. The reverse may be true, however, 

for students lower on the learning curve! 

Ken O’Connor dramatically illustrates the problematic nature of 

using formative assessments in the chart below. (See FIGURE A.1.) In 

this graphic, we fi nd the profi ciency levels of students learning to 

pack parachutes measured over time. Student A begins with aboveaverage profi ciency, gains in profi ciency, and then decreases in 

profi ciency at the end of the recorded time period. Student B shows 

a lack of consistency in performance, with profi ciency rising and falling many times throughout the recording period. Student C began 

with very low profi ciency, but has gradually increased in profi ciency 

throughout the recording period. The question arises: At the end of 

the recording period, whom do you want to pack YOUR parachute?

FIGURE A.1

Parachute Packers

���������

���������

���������

�

�

�

����

�����������

�������

�����������

O’Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

p.33, Figure Intro.11

When asked this question, most participants in O’Connor’s workshops 

will answer that they would like Student C to pack their parachute. 

Student C has gradually improved in performance and has the highest profi ciency rating on the day of the jump. O’Connor then asks 

teachers to speculate about the students’ summative grades. Which 

student would have the highest grade point average at the end of 

the recording period? Most participants agree that Student A would 

have a higher average, since Student A has more data appearing 

over the “average profi ciency” line on the graph.

This “Parachute Packing” graphic, then, illustrates the problematic 

nature of using formative grades to calculate ending grades. Should 

Student C have a lower average than Student A, simply because he 

took longer to learn? Should all the data points on the graph (some 

taken while students were still learning, i.e., formative grades) be used 
94

to figure the final, overall grade? O’Connor emphasizes that if we simply want to know if the students can pack a parachute, the use of all 

data points is unnecessary and actually unfair, particularly to Student 

C. O’Connor further stipulates, “I believe formative assessment has no 

place in determining report card grades” (O’Connor, personal communication, October 3, 2005).

How Much Does the Assignment Count 

(Weighting)?

It is not uncommon for teachers to weight assignments differently. By 

“weighting,” teachers assign relative importance to assignments. For 

example, a teacher may count homework as only 10% of the fi nal 

grade, but the fi nal exam may count 50%. Such differential weighting 

can have a huge impact on the fi nal grade. Let’s look at a research 

study conducted by Marzano (2000).

In this study, Marzano asked two teachers who were team-teaching 

the same set of students to fi gure fi nal grades for their 26 students. 

Both teachers used the same set of recorded grades and both 

worked independently to calculate ending grades. When the grades 

for the 26 students were compared, Marzano (2000, p. 5) found:

• One student was assigned grades that differed by three letter 

grades (e.g., A vs. D).

• Two students received grades that differed by two letter 

grades (e.g., A vs. C).

• Eight students’ grades differed by one letter grade

(e.g., A vs. B)

• Fifteen students received the same grade from both teachers. 

• In all, there was agreement on only 15 of 26 grades or 57.7% of 

the grades.

Marzano found that the differences in grading arose from the 

weighting of the assignments. One perhaps counted performance 

assessments as more important than homework assignments, or one 

weighted the chapter test more than the other.

This research study illustrates how weighting of assignments can 

impact summative grades. The same data set of assignments can 

result in widely divergent ending grades, depending on the weighting scheme used. To ensure valid grades, the weighting scheme 

should be one that supports accuracy and consistency and one that 

is closely aligned with academic standards.

Statistical Methods Used

Throughout recent grading history, teachers have tended to average 

all grades in order to get fi nal grades. “Averaging” uses the statistical 

method of fi nding the mean. However, there are two other statistical 

methods that could be used in calculating fi nal grades. These are 

the mode and the median. Let’s take a set of scores for one student 

and compare the fi nal grade obtained from using all three statistical 

methods. Here are Taquisha’s scores for the third grading period in 

science: 93, 94, 93, 67, 98, 91, 90. Using the mean (or “averaging”) to 

fi gure Taquisha’s grade, we would add them all together and divide 

by seven (the number of grades). By doing this, we would obtain an 
95

average of 89.4 for Taquisha. On a typical grading scale of 80–89% = 

B, Taquisha would have a very high B.

Using the statistical method of the mode means that we simply look means that we simply look 

for the grade that occurs most often. For Taquisha, this grade would 

be 93, since she earned this grade twice. Therefore, if we use the 

mode to fi gure Taquisha’s fi nal grade, she would get a 93 (low A) on 

her report card.

Using the median is the third choice we have. To fi nd the median, 

we must fi rst put Taquisha’s grades in numerical order, from highest 

to lowest. This gives us: 98, 94, 93, 93, 91, 90, 67. The second step is to 

look for the grade “in the middle.” Since there are 7 grades, we look 

for the grade that would have 3 grades above it and 3 below. (If 

Taquisha had had an even number of grades, we would simply average the two in the middle to fi nd the median.) This “middle” grade 

is 93. Therefore, if we use the median to calculate Taquisha’s fi nal 

grade, she would again receive a 93 (low A).

Which of these three statistical methods leads to the most meaningful (or appropriate) summary of Taquisha’s work? If we look at 

all of Taquisha’s grades, on a grading scale where an A = 90–100%, 

Taquisha only has one grade that is not in the A range (67). This one 

grade of 67 results in dropping Taquisha’s fi nal grade from an A to a 

B when using strict averaging (the mean) to fi gure Taquisha’s grade. 

The other two statistical methods both calculate A’s for Taquisha. 

Teachers must use their professional judgment to decide how to calculate fi nal grades. Informing this judgment should be the question, 

“Which method results in a grade that most closely aligns with the 

student’s actual academic performance?” If an outlying score (one 

signifi cantly different from most of the others) appears to unduly infl uence the fi nal grade, the teacher may wish to examine other statistical means of calculating fi nal grades. Teachers may also want to use 

caution in implementing the mode as a means of fi guring the fi nal 

grade. The mode is fairly unstable as an indicator of student achievement. Consider the following set of grades for Kenon: 92, 67, 94, 96, 

99, 67, 91. Using the mode in Kenon’s case would result in a grade of 

67, as opposed to a mean of 86.6 or a median of 92. Actually, Kenon’s 

two grades of 67 appear to be outliers (unusual grades for Kenon). 

Therefore, the strict use of the mode can result in grades that do not 

accurately refl ect student achievement relative to standards.

The Use of Zeros

Our working defi nition of grade reliability states that grades accurately depict student academic performance relative to a learning 

target or standard. A grade of zero rarely provides such an accurate 

refl ection of what a student has learned. Zeros are most commonly 

used to denote absent or missing assignments. However, when such 

zero scores are used to calculate summative, report card grades, 

their effects may be greatly magnifi ed and therefore, zeros may negatively impact grade reliability. Let’s look at a set of scores for Jason.

In science class this term, Jason has earned the following set of marks: 

90, 92, 88, 90, 91, 89, and 91. Simple averaging of these scores gives 

Jason an overall fi nal grade of 90.1. Adding in a single zero to this set 

of scores, however, drops this average to 78.9. Which fi nal score more 

accurately refl ects Jason’s performance in science this term?
96

Teachers often defend the use of zeros by stating that they cannot give

students credit for missing work. While this is true, many fail to assess the 

huge negative impact that even one zero can have on a student’s ending average. How can the effect of zero scores be minimized?

O’Connor (1999) states that teachers consider giving the highest possible “F” score on a missing assignment, rather than recording a zero. 

For example, if the grading scale uses “0–69” as an “F,” the teacher 

would record “69” for all missing work. Conversely, Guskey (2004) 

suggests that teachers consider giving “Incomplete” grades until students turn in missing assignments. Students with Incomplete grades 

could then be required to attend special after school or Saturday 

sessions. Another of Guskey’s (2004, p. 52) suggestions is to change 

the grading scale used. He states:

Schools using this approach shift from percentage grading 

scales where, for example, A = 90–100%, B = 80–89%, C = 

70–79% and so on to whole number scales where A = 4, B = 

3, C = 2 and so on. In other words, although teachers can 

still assign zeros to student work that is missed, neglected, or 

turned in late, the effect of a zero is lessened because it is 

not so extreme.

Using Guskey’s change in grading scale suggestion, let’s return to 

Jason’s grades:

 90 = A = 4

 92 = A = 4

 88 = B = 3

 90 = A = 4

 91 = A = 4

 89 = B = 3

 91 = A = 4

 0 = F = 0

On this scale, Jason’s average would be 3.25, corresponding to a B 

average. This B average more closely refl ects his overall work in science this term than the 78.9 (C) he would receive on the percentage 

grading scale, using the mean (including the zero) to calculate the 

fi nal grade.

We can also use O’Connor’s suggestion and replace Jason’s 

zero with 69. Doing this gives Jason an ending average (using 

grades of 90, 92, 88, 90, 91, 89, 91, and 69) of 87.5 (B). Again, 

this grade appears more consistent with his performance in 

science than the fi nal grade of 78.9. We should note, however, 

that this suggestion by O’Connor is hugely controversial. Some districts who have implemented this suggestion have found grades 

challenged by school boards and by parents. 

Let’s return to Jason’s grades for a moment and re-examine the 

use of different statistical methods to calculate a fi nal grade. 

Jason has one zero. His other grades are: 90, 92, 88, 90, 91, 89, 

and 91. We’ve already established that using the mean (averaging) will result in a fi nal grade of 78.9. What if we use the median? 

Placing Jason’s grades in numerical order gives us: 0, 88, 89, 90, 

90, 91, 91, and 92. The median is 90. 

In summary, then, teachers can minimize the impact of zeros using 

several different strategies. They can: 1) use the highest possible “F” 

score in place of the zero; 2) give “incomplete” grades for missing 

���������

������������������������������

����������������������������

�����������������������

��������������������������

�����������

�� ��������������������������

� ����������������������

� ������������������������

�� ������������������������

�����������������
97

work; 3) use a whole number scale rather than a percentage scale; 

or 4) use the median to fi gure the fi nal grade, rather than the mean. 

Teachers should use their professional judgment to decide which 

method will work the best in their classroom and which will best align 

with school, district, or state policy.

The above discussion of grade reliability has brought to light some problematic areas in grading. We have seen some very familiar and often 

used grading practices that may negatively impact grade reliability. 

Rather than dwelling on problems, however, this publication attempts to 

propose solutions. The following summary from Butler & McMunn (2006) 

outlines a productive grading plan that will result in reliable grades.

FIGURE A.2

Creating a Productive Grading Plan

IDEA EXAMPLE/EXPLANATION

1. Grades are strictly tied to 

student achievement of 

curricular standard.

Grades contain only information about student academic 

performance—no data on conduct, attendance, or attitude 

are included.

2. Grades are meaningful 

and derived from quality 

assessment tasks.

Valid assessments aligned with the standards are used to 

collect data. Example: A performance assessment is used to 

determine if a student can correctly operate a microscope 

(not a pencil-and-paper test). Suffi cient data (multiple 

sources, triangulation) exists.

3. Grades are fi gured from 

summative assessments.

Assessment data is collected while students are learning new 

concepts, but such formative data are not used in fi guring 

fi nal grades. Grades on assignments are only taken (and 

counted) after students have had time to practice the new 

knowledge or skill and have received feedback on their 

performances.

4. Zeros for missing work do 

not overly penalize students.

Either O’Connor’s or Guskey’s suggestions for minimizing zeros 

are used.

5. Grading policies are 

developed and shared with 

students and parents.

Written grading policy statements are distributed to parents 

and students at the beginning of the year. Both parents and 

students are given opportunities to ask questions about the 

policies in order to clarify their understanding.

6. Grading policies are 

standardized throughout a 

school/district.

Schools and/or districts have regularly scheduled meetings 

to discuss grading practices. Teachers who teach the same 

subjects at the same grade levels have opportunities to work 

together and discuss scoring of sample student work.

7. Grades refl ect students’ 

current achievement levels.

Use the median as the statistical method by which to 

calculate fi nal grades or weight the most recent work more weight the most recent work more 

than earlier work and/or only use summative assessments for 

fi guring fi nal grades.

Grade Book Formats

In order to implement such a productive grading plan as the one 

outlined in FIGURE A.2, changes in record-keeping may be necessary. 

FIGURE A.3 provides one sample grade book format that may be useful in visualizing new ways of record-keeping. Note that this grade 

book is divided into two sides: A Formative Page and a Summative 

Page. We’ll examine each page in detail.
98

Students

Diagnostic Journal Entry 

on Weather Concepts Taking Measurements

Classifying Cloud Types

Weather Map—

Symbol Interpretation

Predicting and 

Forecasting

Concept Map 

Terms Worksheet

Thermometer

Anemometer

Barometer

1 A NC

A 8/10 7/7

4

4 18/20

2 NC NC

I 9/10 6/7

4

3 Missing

3

I

A NC 10/10 Missing

3

4 17/20

4

I

I

I 7/10 5/7

2

3 14/20

5

A

A

A 8/10 4/7

3

2 20/20

FIGURE A.3

Sample Grade Book Format for Six-Week Grading 

Period

Topic Covered: Weather Formative Page
99

Students

Performance Assessment: 

Accurate Measurements 

(Lab Practical Exam)

Terms Quiz (Matching)

Clouds Quiz

(Label)

Forecasting Essay

Multiple-Choice Test

Scores converted to

4-point scale

Weighted Scores = (Score 

converted to 4-point scale) x 

(weight percentage)

Final Weighted Score

Final Grade

(30%) (10%) (10%) (30%) (20%)

1 98 100 100 24=A 95 4,4,4,4,4 1.2, 0.4, 0.4, 1.2, 0.8 4 A

2 96 94 84 22=B 86 4,4,3,3,3 1.2, 0.4, 0.3, 0.9, 0.6 3.4 B3 78 96 88 19=C 92 2,4,3,2,4 0.6, 0.4, 0.3, 0.6, 0.8 2.7 (rounds to 3) (rounds to 3) 2.7 B4 70 96 98 18=C 78 2,4,4,2,2 0.3, 0.4, 0.4, 0.6, 0.4 2.1 C5 100 100 100 24=A 96 4,4,4,4,4 1.2, 0.4, 0.4, 1.2, 0.8 4 A

Summative Page
100

Formative Page

On the Formative side of the grade book, we fi nd several different 

entries. The fi rst is diagnostic, rather than formative and consists of 

a journal entry on weather concepts. The teacher has graded this 

with a ✓+, ✓, ✓- grading scheme. The teacher is not trying to record a 

grade for the diagnostic, but rather record a grade that will help her 

remember the relative knowledge levels shown by the students. We 

assume that students making a ✓+ would have shown greater knowledge or understanding of weather concepts on this diagnostic than 

those making ✓-. We hope that the teacher analyzed the answers 

from all the students to help her plan instruction on this unit. 

The next few entries on the Formative side of the grade book appear 

to be performance items, in which students were required to take 

accurate measurements with various weather instruments. For these 

measurements, the teacher has recorded “A,” “NC,” or “I” grades. 

“A” stands for Accurate measurement, “NC” is for Inconsistent accuracy, and “I” is for Inaccurate measuring. Hopefully, students scoring 

NC or I were given further opportunities to practice and meaningful 

feedback to help them improve.

The next two grades on the Formative Side (Classifying Clouds and 

Weather Map-Symbol Interpretation) are simply recorded as “number 

right/total number.” A similar grading scheme was used on the last 

assignment recorded, the Terms Worksheet. Again, this information 

is for the purpose of determining who may need further practice in 

these areas. Note that two different students are missing assignments 

in these categories.

The teacher appears to have used a rubric for the “Predicting and 

Forecasting” and “Concept Map” grades. These rubrics divided 

students into profi ciency levels of Excellent (4), Good (3), Adequate 

(2), and Re-do (1). We note that no students were required to re-do 

the assignments. The rubrics were analytical, with clear descriptions 

of each level of performance. Therefore, when students received 

the rubric scores, they could clearly identify their own strengths and 

weaknesses. The written descriptors could also aid the students in 

improving their performances.

We should note that none of the assignments listed on the Formative 

side of the grade book are used to calculate the fi nal grade for the 

six-weeks grading period. The Formative side of the grade book is 

strictly informational in nature. It helps the teacher capture snapshots 

of student achievement during the learning process. He can use such 

snapshots to differentiate instruction for his class.

Summative Page

The summative side of the grade book contains the grades that 

“counted.” In other words, these are the grades that were used to 

determine the fi nal six-weeks grade. On this side, we fi nd fi ve summative grades, each showing the weight of the assignment. There 

is a lab practical exam that counts 30% of the fi nal grade, two quizzes (Terms and Clouds) that each count 10% of the fi nal grade, a 

Forecasting Essay counting 30% of the fi nal grade, and a MultipleChoice Test counting 20% of the fi nal grade.
101

Scores for all assignments except the Forecasting Essay are recorded 

as percentage grades. A rubric was used to grade the Forecasting 

Essay, and the grade conversions are given where the number of 

points earned were translated into letter grades.

All grades were then converted to a four-point scale, with A = 4, B = 

3, C = 2, D = 1, and F = 0. Finally, weighted scores were calculated 

into the fi nal weighted score, using the formula indicated, and a fi nal 

grade was assigned.

How does this sample grade book format support the productive 

grading plan outlined in the previous section? Let’s look at this point 

by point:

1. Grades are strictly tied to student achievement of 

curricular standard.

 The curricular standards being taught by this teacher come 

from the National Science Education Standards for K–4. The 

fi rst is under the subtitle of Earth and Space Science (National 

Research Council, 1999, p. 134). One of these content standards reads, “Weather changes from day to day and over 

the seasons. Weather can be described by measurable 

quantities, such as temperature, wind direction and speed, 

and precipitation.” Two other content standards from NSES 

are also being utilized by this teacher. These fall under the 

Science as Inquiry category and in the Abilities Necessary to 

Do Scientifi c Inquiry subcategory (National Research Council, 

1999, p. 122). These are stated as: “Employ simple equipment 

and tools to gather data and extend the senses,” and “Use 

data to construct a reasonable explanation.”

 The assignments given to the students in this six-week period 

align with one of these national standards.

2. Grades are meaningful and derived from quality 

assessment tasks.

 Without viewing the actual sample of assessments used, this 

is harder to discern. However, we are able to tell that the 

teacher provides opportunities for practice before taking 

summative grades and that the formative assessments do 

align with the summative ones. The teacher utilizes rubrics to 

provide meaningful feedback to students.

3. Grades are fi gured from summative assessments.

 No formative grades have been used to fi gure fi nal grades. 

All grades that “count” are summative ones.

4. Zeros for missing work do not overly penalize students.

 No zeros were recorded in the summative section of this grade 

book. However, even if there were recorded zeros, the effect of 

the zero grades would be minimized as the teacher converts 

all grades to a four-point scale before fi guring fi nal grades.

5. Grading policies are shared with students and parents.

 We have no data from this grade book to tell us if the teacher 

shared grading policies with students and parents.
102

6. Grading policies are standardized throughout a

school/district.

 We have no data that either supports or refutes this action by 

the teacher.

7. Grades refl ect students’ current achievement levels.

 The teacher uses the median as the statistical method for 

fi guring fi nal grades and only uses summative assignments to 

compute fi nal grades.

By examining each productive grading practice, this analysis of 

the sample grade book fi nds that fi ve of the seven recommended 

grading practices are exemplifi ed by this teacher. 

�����������

������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������
103

REFERENCES

Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, 

R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for 

learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of 

educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Black, P. & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards 

through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2), p. 139–148. (2), p. 139–148.

Black P., Harrison, Christine, Lee, Clare, Marshall, Bethan, and Wiliam, D. 

(2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the 

classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, (9), p. 9–21.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classifi cation 

of educational goals, cognitive and affective domain. New York: 

David McKay Co.

Borich, G. (2000). Effective teaching methods. Upper Saddle River, NJ: 

Prentice Hall.

Brookhart, S.M. (2004). Grading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson 

Education, Inc.

Brown, G. & Edmondson, R. (1984). Asking questions. In E. Wragg (Ed.) 

Classroom teaching skills Classroom teaching skills (pp. 97–119). New York: Nichols. (pp. 97–119). New York: Nichols.

Butler, S.M. & McMunn, N.D. (2006). A teacher’s guide to classroom 

assessment: Understanding and using assessment to improve student 

learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Chappuis, S., Stiggins, R.J., Arter, J., & Chappuis, J. (2004). Assessment for 

learning: An action guide for school leaders. Portland, OR: Assessment 

Training Institute.

Guskey, T.R. (2004). O Alternatives. Principal Leadership, 5 (2), 49–53. (2), 49–53.

Hibbard, K. M. ( 2000). Performance-based learning and assessment in 

middle school science. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Marzano, R.J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mississippi State Curriculum Frameworks. Science frameworks (5th). 

Retrieved August 2, 2005 from http://marcopolo.mde.k12.ms.us/frameworks/

science/sci_05.html

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Science standard course 

of study and grade level competencies. Retrieved May 26, 2005 from 

www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/science/standard/toc.html

O’Connor, K. (1999). The mindful school. How to grade for learning. 

Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Training and Publishing Inc. 

O’Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning: Linking grades to 

standards. (2nd Ed). Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Training and 

Publishing, Inc.

Regional Educational Laboratories. (1998). Improving classroom 

assessment: A toolkit for professional developers. Portland, OR: 

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Stiggins, R. (1993). Teacher training in assessment: Overcoming the 

neglect. In Wise, S.L. (Ed.) Teacher training in measurement and 

assessment skills, 27–40. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements.

Stiggins, R. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment Student-involved classroom assessment. Upper Saddle . Upper Saddle 

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

South Carolina Department of Education. Science curriculum standards. 

Retrieved May 27, 2005 from www.myscschools.com/offi ces/cso/standards/

science/Sunshine State Standards. K–2 science curriculum. Retrieved May 

26, 2005 from www.fi rn.edu/doe/curric/prek12/pdf/prk-2g.pdf

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the 

needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C.A. & Allan, S.D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools 

and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and 

Curriculum Development.
The SERVE Center at UNCG, under the leadership of Dr. Ludwig David 

van Broekhuizen, is an education organization with the mission to 

promote and support the continuous improvement of educational 

opportunities for all learners in the Southeast. The organization’s 

commitment to continuous improvement is manifest in an applied 

research-to-practice model that drives all of its work. Building on 

research, professional wisdom, and craft knowledge, SERVE staff 

members develop tools, processes, and interventions designed to 

assist practitioners and policymakers with their work. SERVE’s ultimate goal is to raise the level of student achievement in the region. 

Evaluation of the impact of these activities combined with input 

from stakeholders expands SERVE’s knowledge base and informs 

future research.

This rigorous and practical approach to research and development 

is supported by an experienced staff strategically located throughout the region. This staff is highly skilled in providing needs assessment services, conducting applied research in schools, and developing processes, products, and programs that support educational 

improvement and increase student achievement. In the last three 

years, in addition to its basic research and development work with 

over 170 southeastern schools, SERVE staff provided technical assistance and training to more than 18,000 teachers and administrators 

across the region.

The SERVE Center is governed by a board of directors that includes 

the governors, chief state school offi cers, educators, legislators, and 

private sector leaders from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina.

SERVE’s operational core is the Regional Educational Laboratory. 

Funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education 

Sciences, the Regional Educational Laboratory for the Southeast 

is one of ten Laboratories providing research-based information 

and services to all 50 states and territories. These Laboratories form 

a nationwide education knowledge network, building a bank of 

information and resources shared and disseminated nationally 

and regionally to improve student achievement. SERVE’s National 

Leadership Area, Expanded Learning Opportunities, focuses on 

improving student outcomes through the use of exemplary pre-K and 

extended-day programs.

P.O. Box 5367 • Greensboro, NC 27435

800-755-3277 • 336-315-7400 • Fax 336-315-7457

Ludwig David van Broekhuizen, Ph.D., Executive Director

www.serve.org

ABOUT SERVE