Continuing with the standards-based grading (SBG) theme, I wanted
to share one idea on how I might structure a system and one possible
modification to that plan. As I noted before, I haven’t found an SBG system
that I feel frames the outcomes quite like I would want to. I’m not even sure
that I like what I’m going to detail here, as I’d really want to see how it
works in a classroom before passing judgement. I did learn a lot, though, from
the process of drafting these ideas. Honestly, the learning and buy-in that
happen through the SBG creation process are really the critical aspects of this
work for a school/district. Here I’ll continue to frame this work in a 1st
grade classroom, though the ideas could certainly be applied across K-12.
I would start by ensuring there is a general focus on sense-making
of phenomena and solving problems. That focus comes out in supplemental
standards materials, but is not always explicit in the NGSS performance
expectations. Next, I think it’s valuable to specifically determine students’
capacity for using practices and crosscutting concepts (CCCs). There are too
many to include them all, so I’d condense them, and I would also make sure
they’re connected to this overarching sense-making goal. The Yearlong Grade
Chart below shows the core setup:
Yearlong
Grade Chart
|
1st Grade Science
Report Card
|
Framing the Science
|
Investigating and Building
Evidence
|
Modeling and Explaining
|
Using
Lens of Causality
|
Using
Lens of Systems
|
|
1st Trimester
Students make sense of
phenomena and solve problems related to organisms’ structures, growth, and
traits passed to offspring by…
|
2.5
|
2
|
3
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
|
2nd Trimester
Students make sense of
phenomena and solve problems related to light and sound by…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3rd Trimester
Students make sense of
phenomena and solve problems related to the sun, moon, and stars by…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming three grading periods, each trimester lines up with one
of the NGSS topics at 1st grade. As seen in the left column (the row descriptors), the
main focus underlying all of student work is that they are making sense of
phenomena and solving problems related to the main disciplinary core idea (DCI) concepts within a topic.
Students are doing this work through the practices and crosscutting concepts,
which are condensed into five main categories noted across the top. These
categories are:
·
Framing the Science
– This category combines the practices of Asking Questions and Defining
Problems with Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information. Students
use these skills in framing their scientific work as they ask questions and find
and evaluate information about phenomena. They have to think analytically to
communicate information they have gathered, or ask questions to direct their
information gathering. Further, a main part of defining problems is gathering
relevant information.
·
Investigating and Building
Evidence – This category combines the practices of Planning and Carrying
Out Investigations and Analyzing and Interpreting Data, with Using Mathematics
and Computational Thinking. In designing an investigation, students have to
consider how they will gather data and how to collect it in such a way as to
make it interpretable. Further, they employ mathematical thinking as they
design plans for collecting quantitative data and make sense of data sets.
·
Modeling and Explaining
– This category combines the practices of Developing and Using Models, and
Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions, with Engaging in Argument
from Evidence. Students often use models as parts of their explanations,
showing relationships in evidence they have gathered and how that evidence
supports their arguments. Arguing about how one explanation better fits a set
of data is often akin to arguing how one model better fits the evidence than
another one.
·
Causality
– This category combines the crosscutting concepts of Patterns, Cause and
Effect, and Stability and Change. As students make sense of phenomena, they use
patterns to determine cause and effect. Further, they consider whether they are
seeing patterns of stability or change and what is causing those patterns.
·
Systems
– This category combines the crosscutting concepts of Systems and System
Models; Scale, Proportion and Quantity; Energy and Matter; and Structure and
Function. In making sense of phenomena, students use a lens of systems, which
includes considerations of scale of those systems, energy and matter movement
in those systems, and structures and functions of elements of those systems.
Through the course of a grading term, students would receive
scores on assignments in these five categories, with a final proficiency level
noted in this yearlong chart (samples shown). Growth in each of these categories
can then be seen through the course of the year. Parents would need to be
provided with a generic description of what the different proficiency levels
mean in these five categories; however, the actual rubrics used to provide
specific scores on assignments would be much more detailed and nuanced in relation to the
practice and crosscutting concepts and their subskills.
The chart for a single grading period, such as the 1st trimester, would look like the one below. The five categories are along the
left, with individual projects, notebook work, assessments, etc., across the
top. Not all student work would be included in this grading chart. Student work
might align to multiple categories, but it would be essential to have a more
narrow focus on fewer categories for ease of teacher grading and effective
student feedback. Each grading period would have a chart like this one (though
it might look a bit different within a particular online grading/management
program).
Single
Grading Period Chart
|
Categories
|
Trimester
1
|
||||||
|
Lab
Notebook
|
Growth
Investigation
|
Structure
and Function Investigation
|
Structure
and Function Task
|
Inheritance
Project
|
Lab
Notebook
|
End-point
|
|
|
Framing
the Science
|
2
|
|
2
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
||
|
Modeling
and Explaining
|
2
|
2
|
2.5
|
2
|
2
|
||
|
Investigating
and Evidence
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
||
|
Causality
|
2
|
|
1.5
|
2.5
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
Systems
|
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
2.5
|
||
In this example, rubrics for each particular category are on a
four-point scale. Students receive multiple scores in each category during each
grading period, with the final score reflecting their learning progress, not an
average of scores. Of course, a four-point rubric isn’t a magic number; some
might prefer a three- or five-point rubric, some a dichotomous “proficient” or
“progressing.” I like the progression nuances that a four-point rubric provides.
I also value the Facets process from the NSF-funded ACESSE Project for figuring out a progression of student understanding of a particular topic
or a progression of their abilities within particular practices. It can be a
valuable tool for creating the progression within a rubric.
Importantly, multiple rubrics would give rise to a specific score
in each category on this grading chart. Within “framing the science,” a teacher
might emphasize question-asking skills on one rubric and problem-defining
skills on another, though both would factor into the overall score. As another
example, scores in the “modeling and explaining” category might emphasize simple
modeling to represent a phenomenon at the beginning and progress to students
using the model as part of a verbal explanation. These intricate and practical
details on progression of learning and creation of rubrics are where the true
finesse, meaning, and artistry of teaching come in.
How the rubric is framed becomes very important so the
multidimensional nature of the standards doesn’t get lost, and so all of the individual
practices and CCCs (and subskills within each) don’t get lost. These rubrics
will need to emphasize sense-making within a particular subject area through
use of practices or crosscutting concepts. A sample rubric below emphasizes
students making sense of several multigenerational photos from students in
class. The teacher is specifically hoping to have students make observations
and draw patterns from those observations. He then wants students to verbally
and collaboratively make a claim about patterns they see in traits of parents
and children.
Rubric
to Support Student Learning and Add Evidence to Grading Chart
|
Objectives &
Standards
|
1
|
2
|
3 (proficient)
|
4
|
|
Student can make
observations and use patterns to make claims about common traits in
multi-generational family photos.
(LS3.A and B; CCC1; SEP4
and 6)
|
Student makes observations and can point out things [traits]
that are the same in parents and children, understanding these as images of
parents and children.
|
Student makes observations and recognizes patterns across
different families, noting things [traits] that are more similar within one
family than in different families.
|
Student uses patterns found in observations as evidence to
support a claim that members of one family have similarities that make them
different from another family.
|
Student uses patterns found in observations to support a claim
that there are both similarities and differences among and between families, supporting
claims that all people have similarities, families have similarities, and
we’re all unique.
|
Notably, there could be other ways students show a beginning or
advanced understanding beyond what is noted in this rubric. Scores of 1, 2, and
4 are only starting points of what that continuum of understanding might look
like. Careful consideration of proficiency, a score of 3, is the key part of
the rubric. Further ideas on rubrics
and performance
tasks are in my previous blog posts.
In my categories and rubric, I do specifically link to
crosscutting concepts, though some across the country argue that assessing
crosscutting concepts directly is not possible. I do think students could be
asked to describe patterns they see in relation to a phenomenon or explain why
they would include some aspects of a system under review and not others. I want
to see their scientific thinking. Admittedly, that will overlap with practice.
Any display of scientific thinking, for example, could be considered modeling.
Nevertheless, to call out the importance of the CCCs, I’d err on the side of
including them and see how things play out.
It would, therefore, be easy to shrink these SBG categories down
to only three by eliminating the two crosscutting concepts categories. Arguably,
ideas within my CCC categories “causality” and “systems” could connect across
the other three practice categories (“framing the science,” “modeling and
explaining,” and “investigating and building evidence”). For example, cause and
effect comes in as you ask questions, choose variables for study in an
investigation, and argue with evidence. Having fewer categories would also make
things easier for educators (always a good thing).
Whatever the categories, the key piece not to lose is the focus on
sense-making. We want students making sense of phenomena and solving problems
by using the practices and thinking from the lens of the crosscutting concepts.
We want teachers to be able to provide students with coherent feedback through
the course of a year to support them on that path.
As always, I welcome your feedback!
