In this case, I’m going to imagine I was back teaching fifth
graders and doing a physical science unit to support students in understanding
properties and changes of matter (5-PS1). Below is my thinking as I designed a
task, using the steps noted in the previous post on designing performance tasks.
1) Determine
a phenomenon – With an overarching question in this unit of, “How do
substances change under different conditions?,” I look for an engaging
phenomenon for students to investigate related to this learning. I decide on
having them observe and investigate a burning match (with the added benefit of
supporting students in proper fire safety!). Criteria
for evaluating phenomena from NSTA could help in choosing a phenomenon. I see
the burning match as engaging to students, something they’ve likely experienced
(or can experience in class), easily connected to the intended standards, and
containing a bit of mystery as to what exactly is going on.
2) Work with
practices – I next decide how and whether this phenomenon can connect to
the science practices I feel will bring this learning alive for students. Ideally,
I’d like to engage them in practices where I know they struggle, so I can have
another data point in their progress. Modeling fits the bill on both fronts.
Based on ideas from Appendix
F of the NGSS within the 3-5 grade band, I’ve already had students doing
collaborative modeling and using models we’ve created (or I’ve provided) to
support explanations. I decide to have them try to individually develop their
own models here to describe this phenomena; that’s also a sub-skill noted in
Appendix F. That means students will need some extra guidance on not getting
help from others (yet), so I can get a better sense of where they’re at
individually.
3) Form a
learning target – In conjunction with thinking about practices, I dig
further into the disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) and performance expectations
(PEs) to flesh out a learning target for this assessment task. I see this work
as building toward PEs 5-PS1
through 5-PS4. I also see links to the PS1.A and B DCIs: matter is made of
particles too small to be seen, the amount of matter is conserved when it
changes form, and when substances are mixed a new substance may be formed.
Within this focus, I can also see that students will be most explicitly working
with the crosscutting concept of matter and energy, though others could also
fit such as patterns and scale). My learning target would thus become,
“Students create a model to help explain what happens at the particle level
when a match burns.” I want them to be able to zoom in to show that we start
with a mix of air and match particles, then end up with different particles:
smoke, ash, and water (though noticing the water won’t be critical here). I
want them to also use that model to help describe that properties (such as
color, texture, and weight) have changed—realizing that some of that weight
literally went up in smoke. Because I’m also going to try to see whether
students can describe conservation of matter during this change, there’s also a
formative assessment of finding weight (mass vs. weight is not differentiated
at this grade), although conservation of matter is more of a secondary aspect
of the learning target that we’ll work more with after this assessment.
4) Flesh out
the scenario – As a class we’d discuss what substances they’re starting
with–the match and the air around it (I want them to consider the air, though I
don’t think it’s necessary they come up with that on their own here), and what
properties to consider. I’d lead them toward weight if it didn’t come up, being
open to others as well. Students then individually find the weight of the match
and make further observations of it (another formative assessment). With
teacher support as needed, they light the match and let it burn on a safe
surface, making further observations, including touching it once it’s cooled
off if they choose.
Thinking
about questions for them during this process, I look to the Research andPractice NGSS Task Formats [link] and the modeling components of Appendix F for ideas. I decide to provide this instruction: “Draw a model (picture) of the
match before and after it burns that helps explain what the particles are doing
in the match and around the match.” I also look at CCCs for question ideas and
decide to ask, “How did you show things in your model that are too small to
see?” and “How does your model show the same amount of matter there at the
beginning and end?” In this unit, students would have previously worked with
models of particles and models of particles in matter that’s undergoing
changes.
5) Create a
vision of proficiency – While there are several skills and content pieces
going on here, I specifically want a straightforward rubric focused on my key
learning target of students being able to create a model that helps explain the
particle nature of matter and that a change has taken place. At this point, I
would create and use a rubric, however, only if I had a clear sense of expected
elements of students’ proficiency. If I didn’t have a sense of how to lay out
this topic, skill, or way of thinking in a progression, I would instead work
with Facets of Students
Understanding to gather and organize their work into categories showing
what they can do/understand at this point. These categories could later be
tailor made into a rubric showing a progression of their abilities and
understanding.
In
this case, I’m planning use of a rubric. At a more advanced level, I’m looking
for students showing conservation of matter in their models (the frame of the
crosscutting concept); that’s something that I expect them to collaboratively
begin to be able to describe, but I see it as a more advanced skill at this
time at the individual level. Below is an image of what that rubric might look
like. Here’s a word file of this rubric [link] and a pdf. To create the
rubric I used Appendix F and the evidence statements of the NGSS,
following principles described in a previous post.
|
Main Target
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
Students create a
model to help explain what’s happening at the particle level when a match
burns.
|
Student creates a model that shows visible objects (the
match before and after in this case).
He/she provides some observations of these objects, such
as the match before and after it burns.
|
Student shows a connection between visible matter and particles
too small as part of their model.
Through before and after models, student shows that a
change has taken place in this phenomenon.
|
Student creates a model that shows and describes visible
objects (the match) and particles too small to be seen in the air and the
match.
Student’s model describes and shows that the particles
before and after are different, because we have new substances (e.g., ash and
smoke).
With scaffolding, students is able to describe how there’s
the same amount of stuff before and after within this phenomenon.
|
Student’s series of models clearly describes visible and
particle-level changes, providing evidence that a chemical change has taken
place.
Student describes through the model how the amount of
stuff is the same before and after, even though the detailed weight
measurement suggests it’s less.
|
6) Reflect
– I would walk around with a rubric in hand writing students’ names on it,
noting where students are at and adding relevant notes about any other elements
of their understanding. I’d reflect on results to determine how to best
structure our next investigation(s) and who might need further scaffolding,
mentoring, or other support within those investigations to build understanding
of these topics and skills of modeling. I’d also gain a sense of where we’re at
as a class overall. Note: I wouldn’t be grading students, and they wouldn’t be
grading each other! That’s not what formative assessment is about.
To
more directly support students’ learning, I’d have them share models with a
partner. Students would each share their model, talking about its components
and what it means. They would then take turns discussing one another’s
models/thinking in relation to the rubric. As a class we would share a few
models with important learning elements, and I’d provide students time to
revise their models based on that learning. We’d also revisit these models at
the end of the unit, enhancing them with further learning.
